NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

How about you reply to my points. Or is that asking too much? Would that be hijacking? You call it hijacking when people explain their views.

You have one-quarter of the posts in this thread and I can summarize your position in a couple of sentences.

You believe the police orchestrated retribution against this man for videotaping the incident. Pretty much all you've offered up in all those posts.

Ju or I had to say. Troll.unlike You(Jocaiba).. JuNii (at least) did answer straight YES-or-NO.. (so I replied to him)

You have failed to give an straight answer to the Questions. But your Blah-Blah was there.. as usual.

I hate it when mommy and daddy fight....she talks too much...
Jocaiba: "Blah-Blah-Blah.. Blah-Blah-Blah.. Blah-Blah-Blah..)

ans she whines non stop
Jocaiba: (: But you implied it.. :( You did..I swear..:( You implied it..)

:D :D :p :D

unlike You(Jocaiba).. JuNii (at least) did answer straight YES-or-NO.. (so I replied to him)

You have failed to give an straight answer to the Questions. But your Blah-Blah was there.. as usual.

Had you bothered to read the posts Junii and Jocabia created and responded in full to them , instead of selectively answering them as yiu have done, you would see that A) Both parties gave full answers and B) Junii gave concrete evidence that you implied a national conspiracy.

she talks too much...
Jocaiba: "Blah-Blah-Blah.. Blah-Blah-Blah.. Blah-Blah-Blah..)

ans she whines non stop
Jocaiba: (: But you implied it.. :( You did..I swear..:( You implied it..)

:D :D :p :D

Uh-huh. Who's the one still bringing that up, troll?

I can't help it if you don't understand the word imply.

unlike You(Jocaiba).. JuNii (at least) did answer straight YES-or-NO.. (so I replied to him)

You have failed to give an straight answer to the Questions. But your Blah-Blah was there.. as usual.

No, you didn't. You selectively replied. And that 'blah, blah, blah' is called supporting your arguments, something you're incapable of.

I'll tell you what, I'l declare victory for you if you can give one shred of evidence that the videographer suffered retribution.

A) Both(Jiny and Jocabia) gave full answers..
Jinii did answer the question.. Jocaiba was mostly "Blah-Blah"
B) Junii gave concrete evidence....That is your opinion.
# you see "Concrete evidence"
# I see him saying "But you implied it"

Jinii did answer the question.. Jocaiba was mostly "Blah-Blah"That is your opinion.
Where you see "Concrete evidence" I see him saying "But you implied it" :D:D

You did imply it. Regardless of the number of smilies you try and use, you cannot get away from that fact. You implied that there was a national conspiracy to arrest the chap who videotaped the entire debacle. Try and use smilies or selectively answer posts if you will, but you cannot escape the fact that you implied it, but will not admit it.

One does not have to say 'There is a national conspiracy' to state that they believe there is one. You said there was one in your first post, depite not actually saying 'There is a national police conspiracy'.

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.



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.



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.



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.



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. 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, but I am not one of them.


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.

Prove you're not trolling. Stop with the nonsense and reply, to all of it. No dropped arguments as is your tendency.

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.

Reply. To all of it. No dropped arguments.

Reply. To all of it. No dropped arguments.

Seconded. Post 228. And no talk of 'Blah Blah' this time.

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



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



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.



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



Emphasis mine.



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?

Reply. To all of it. No dropped arguments.

I'l declare victory for you if you can give one shred of evidence that the videographer suffered retribution.
#1- First I never say he suffered Retribution. (i said it was possible)

#2- (dont be childish)I do not want to declare victory.. I would like you to go back on topic.

BTW I going AFK

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10384688&postcount=62

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.



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.


Why? If there's no problem you can prove, why?



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


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


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 why did you make all those assertions about the police?

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

Reply. To all of it. No dropped arguments.

This one asks very clear questions that would allow you to clarify your points. You never replied to it at all. That was over a dozen pages ago.

#1- First I never say he suffered Retribution. (i said it was possible)

You didn't? Perhaps you don't know what retribution means? I'll help.

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

That doesn't just imply that there was retribution. It out and out says that the cops and justice department made legal action against this videographer worse for videotaping the incident. Let's see if I gather more evidence that you believe this.

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.

Let's see, no 'might', 'maybe', 'perhaps', etc. You use the word now when you say he is in trouble and you say he WOULD have been in less trouble if he hadn't videotaped.

That's not implied. It's plainly stated despite your lies to attempt to claim you never said it.

#2- (dont be childish)I do not want to declare victory.. I would like you to go back on topic.

Interesting. Let's look at the evidence related to this statement.

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

Yep. It's childish to suggest you would declare victory in the thread. So what should we call actually declaring victory.

Now, you claim you would like me to go back on topic, but you refuse to address my points that are on topic. You seem to be only interested in talking about anything but the topic. I actually counted, you have less than a quarter of your posts on topic, despite the pleading throughout this thread for you to reply to our points.

If you'd like to get back on topic, as you claim, reply to the posts above.

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.
What did the deputy do to deserve being charged? Hmm.. Did you actually hear the Deputy say "Do not Get up".. FYI there is a video tape.yes. he said it 3 or 4 times while carrion was saying "I'm going to get up now."

#1- First I never say he suffered Retribution. (i said it was possible) 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..BOLDING IS MINE:
you said in your first post (that you neither refuted, proved or said you were wrong about.) that "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."
That is you saying that the video cameraman is sitting in a FLORIDA PRISION because he video taped an officer of the law shooting a military man in CALIFORNIA.

there is no other possible way to interprete that bolded section to mean anything else but a conspiracy theory.
#2- (dont be childish)I do not want to declare victory.. I would like you to go back on topic.you cannot declare victory, because you are loosing.

unless the victory you are celebrating is the fact that you are successfully trolling.

I hate it when mommy and daddy fight....
hate it also... but you gotta admit, reading this thing between Jocabia and OceanDrive3 is like watching a court room scene between Perry Mason (Jocabia) and Peewee Herman (OceanDrive3) :D

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.
hey, wonder if we can get the OD3 tactic offically adopted by all of NS General. :D

unless the victory you are celebrating is the fact that you are successfully trolling.the victory I was celebrating?
when was that?

the victory I was celebrating?
when was that?
commenting on this post.
#1- First I never say he suffered Retribution. (i said it was possible)

#2- (dont be childish)I do not want to declare victory.. I would like you to go back on topic.

BTW I going AFKyou cannot declare Victory (even if you wanted to) because you have failed to provide any evidence to any point you were insuiating.

the victory I was celebrating?
when was that?commenting on this post.#1- First I never say he suffered Retribution. (i said it was possible)

#2- (dont be childish)I do not want to declare victory.. I would like you to go back on topic.you cannot declare Victory (even if you wanted to) because you have failed to provide any evidence to any point you were insuiating.If you do no want to look like an idiot.. you better read the posts...

It was Jocaiba offering me to declare Victory and to that I replied "You are being Childish"

Read the posts JuNii.. read the posts.. If you don't want to look like an idiot.(it is truly a golden rule)

I you do no want to look like an idiot.. you better read the posts...

It was Jocaiba offering me to declare Victory and to that I replied "You are being Childish"

Read the posts JuNii.. read the posts.. If you don't want to look like an idiot.(it is truly a golden rule)
You should follow your own advice, since you have neither...
a) answered Jocabia's questions nor answered my challanges.
b) supported your claims with evidence.
c) kept on the subject that you have started.

you seem to like going off on tangents that has nothing to do with the subject of YOUR thread. I will give you three (3) posts to answer Either Jocabia's or my counter points with evidence to support your claim, or else I will declare that your arguments that Jose Luis Valdes is being persucuted by the police for his videotape a fantasy and that your claims of Corrupt cops and a corrupt justice system are unwarrented and false.

you seem to like going off on tangents that has nothing to do with the subject of YOUR thread. ...Tangents? The mother of all tangents is in front of my very eyes.. cople of minutes ago You said that I was Celebrating/Declaring Victory, etc..

And now that you can see you were death wrong.. You are starting your own vrsion of Jocaibe Blah-Blah-blah.. and trying to get out of it by declaring this.. I will declare that your arguments (corruption, videotape,etc) are unwarrented and false.(I am rigth You are Wrong, and that is that.)

you are becoming just Like Jocaiba.

Tangents? The mother of all tangents is in front of my very eyes.. cople of minutes ago You said that I was Celebrating/Declaring Victory, etc..

And now that you can see you were death wrong.. You are starting your own vrsion of Jocaibe Blah-Blah-blah.. and trying to get out of it by declaring that


you are becoming Like Jocaiba.that's 1.

Two (2) posts left.

oh, and feel free to prove how Jocabia and I were... "death wrong."

oh, and feel free to prove how Jocabia and I were... "death wrong."The latest one is at the top of this very same page (post#271)



Like I said: read the posts Junii.. read the posts.
unless.. you need an eye doctor or something?

The latest one is at the very Top of this (post#271)



Like I said: read the posts Junii.. read the posts.
unless.. you need an eye doctor or something?
Failure to point post where his claims of Retribution (post 1) was supported.
Failure to post what charges the Deputy should be charged with.
Failure to post that the Deputy did not instruct Carrion to "Don't Get Up" before, during and after Carrion did get to his feet.
Failure to counter Jocabia's claims and evidence.
Failure to Provide Evidence of Corrupt Cops in both States of California as well as Florida.

Continuing to post off Topic
Continuing to Reference post that has nothing to do with topic.

that's 2

1 post left.

Failure to point post where his claims of Retribution (post 1) was supported.
Failure to post what charges the Deputy should be charged with.
Failure to post that the Deputy did not instruct Carrion to "Don't Get Up" before, during and after Carrion did get to his feet.
Failure to counter Jocabia's claims and evidence.
Failure to Provide Evidence of Corrupt Cops in both States of California as well as Florida.

Continuing to post off Topic
Continuing to Reference post that has nothing to do with topic.

that's 2

1 post left.

I can hear the Perry Mason theme tune already - one more post, then the gavel slams down and the credits roll!

I can hear the Perry Mason theme tune already - one more post, then the gavel slams down and the credits roll!
and the funny thing is, I'm giving him hints to what I've been looking for, and he still goes on about "Blah-Blah".

you know, I generally don't like feeding trolls, but I'm finding that this is fun in a sick and twisted way. :D

then again, Jocabia and you might offer another set of three posts each... give him as much chances as possible.

and the funny thing is, I'm giving him hints to what I've been looking for, and he still goes on about "Blah-Blah".

you know, I generally don't like feeding trolls, but I'm finding that this is fun in a sick and twisted way. :D

then again, Jocabia and you might offer another set of three posts each... give him as much chances as possible.

Awwww, but I just remembered the theme music!

Wait...that might be Diagnosis: Murder. I forget...

Awwww, but I just remembered the theme music!

Wait...that might be Diagnosis: Murder. I forget...
damn, thank you so very much...

now I have that song running through my head. :headbang:

If you do no want to look like an idiot.. you better read the posts...

It was Jocaiba offering me to declare Victory and to that I replied "You are being Childish"

Read the posts JuNii.. read the posts.. If you don't want to look like an idiot.(it is truly a golden rule)

You mean like the post where you declared victory. Perhaps you shouldn't have called declaring victory childish since you're the only one who has done so.

You mean like the post where you declared victory. Perhaps you shouldn't have called declaring victory childish since you're the only one who has done so.care to use The QUOTE FUNCTION to show us the post of me saying "I DeclareVictory" or anything like that?

You keep lying and saying you want to get back on topic. Go for it. Here.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10411897&postcount=259
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10411909&postcount=260
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10411933&postcount=262

I would like you to go back on topic.

Admit it. You've been given ample opportunity to get back on topic. Ju has asked. I have asked. All you can do is offer ad hominems and nonsense. I seriously expect you to reply to this post with "I know you are, but what am I". If you want to get back on topic, do it and stop with all the nonsense and whining about how we won't let you get away with twisting the entire thread around the axle.

care to use The QUOTE FUNCTION to show us ?

Oh, look yet another post and still refusing to get back on topic even though you claimed that was all you want. And absolutely, I'm happy to quote you. In fact, I did so yesterday only a few short posts ago. Unlike you, we all follow the thread so we know this has already been quoted.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10412031&postcount=265

And absolutely, I'm happy to quote you.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10412031&postcount=265
You are Quoting yourself..

iit is not hard..really.. Just go the the Post where you claim I "Declared Victory" and use the QUOTE FUCTION.. what are you afraid of?

here... post 263
#1- First I never say he suffered Retribution. (i said it was possible)

#2- (dont be childish)I do not want to declare victory.. I would like you to go back on topic.

BTW I going AFK
here you are IMPLYING that you had the option of declaring Victory even tho Jocabia gave you many concessions to give you your victory.

I just pointed out that even if YOU did WANT TO DECLARE VICTORY, you couldn't because you didn't prove anything except your desire to add another implied conspiracy to the system.

By the way, Post your reply to me very carefully, you only have one post left to either Prove your Implications and conjectors or to admit you were wrong and that there is no plan to make Jose Luis Valdes pay for what he video taped.

You are Quoting yourself..

iit is not hard..really.. Just go the the Post where you claim I "Declared Victory" and use the QUOTE FUCTION.. what are you afraid of?

I did quote you in the post I linked to. Why should I have to do it again? Having trouble reading? Fine.

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

Meanwhile, you do everything you can to avoiding posting on topic while pretending you wish to get back to the topic. Here. How about instead of all this nonsense about how you didn't imply or you didn't say or you didn't declare victory you actually talk about the topic. Everyone else does.

Try replying to this.

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?

Or you can just keep acting silly and trying to talk about anything but the topic at hand. I'm guessing we'll get the latter, but feel free to prove me wrong.

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.

I'm just going to keep doing this until you get back on topic. Reply. To all of it. Not to just the two points that are convenient. Stop dropping arguments.

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



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



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.



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



Emphasis mine.



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?
Still waiting for a reply from the person who claims they wish to get back on topic.

I did quote you in the post I linked to. Why should I have to do it again? Having trouble reading? Fine.



Meanwhile, you do everything you can to avoiding posting on topic while pretending you wish to get back to the topic. Here. How about instead of all this nonsense about how you didn't imply or you didn't say or you didn't declare victory you actually talk about the topic. Everyone else does.

Try replying to this.



Or you can just keep acting silly and trying to talk about anything but the topic at hand. I'm guessing we'll get the latter, but feel free to prove me wrong.to be honest Jocabia... that firework image and "I'm a Pimp again may be OD3 celebrating his forum ranking of "Pimp"

but he does have a habit of making allegations and not following them up with proof as well as avoiding counter claims.

Did you hear the deputy say "Don't get up" as Mr Carrion said "I'm gonna get up now"

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.



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.



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.



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.



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. 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, but I am not one of them.


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.

Still waiting for a reply to this that doesn't consist solely of ad hominems and trolling.

Still waiting for a reply from the person who claims they wish to get back on topic.
I gave him 3 chances to prove his points. he wasted two of them on meaningless prattle. :D

to be honest Jocabia... that firework image and "I'm a Pimp again may be OD3 celebrating his forum ranking of "Pimp"

but he does have a habit of making allegations and not following them up with proof as well as avoiding counter claims.

Did you hear the deputy say "Don't get up" as Mr Carrion said "I'm gonna get up now"

Actually, I didn't see it that way, but I guess you're right. OD3 may have just being spamming the thread. I can admit when I'm wrong. Meanwhile, he could have replied to that when I posted it yesterday. He has proven without a doubt today that he actually is not reading the thread or the links we give him (where he would have seen that I quoted that very post).

And yes, it appears the deputy yells like most people yell where the end of your sentence becomes more clear. It sounds to me like he might be saying "don't" but it is hard to hear clearly from the video. I would assume Carrion would have no problem hearing him. Saying "don't" is of course entirely consistent with the fact that Carrion felt the need to keep declaring he was getting up (which you wouldn't do if you were just following orders) and consistent with the other events. However, I don't see any justification for four shots. It doesn't mean there isn't any, but I would say it's very likely that the deputy overreacted and a man nearly died as a result.

I gave him 3 chances to prove his points. he wasted two of them on meaningless prattle. :D

No, he'll reply to your post about declaring victory or mine but he'll do ANYTHING but actually discuss the topic at hand.

No, he'll reply to your post about declaring victory or mine but he'll do ANYTHING but actually discuss the topic at hand.
Funny that. so far, everytime I bring up the number of posts he has left to convince me his points... he stops.







Was it something I said? :p

Funny that. so far, everytime I bring up the number of posts he has left to convince me his points... he stops.







Was it something I said? :p

I told you, I counted his posts. He has less than 10 posts on topic but he keeps complaining he doesn't have the time to reply. Mind you that's less than 10 out of around 60+ posts. Then he has the nerve to suggest he just wants to get back on topic. However, every time we give him the opportunity, no reply to the posts at all. But post about terrorism or whether he implied something or whether he declared victory and he's all over it. Might lead one to the impression that he doesn't actually want to discuss the topic and he just wanted to post his conspiracy theory and nothing else. I'm trying to think of the word for that...

I told you, I counted his posts. He has less than 10 posts on topic but he keeps complaining he doesn't have the time to reply. Mind you that's less than 10 out of around 60+ posts. Then he has the nerve to suggest he just wants to get back on topic. However, every time we give him the opportunity, no reply to the posts at all. But post about terrorism or whether he implied something or whether he declared victory and he's all over it. Might lead one to the impression that he doesn't actually want to discuss the topic and he just wanted to post his conspiracy theory and nothing else. I'm trying to think of the word for that...:rolleyes:

...


...


...


...


Nope... drawing a blank too. :p

I told you, I counted his posts. He has less than 10 posts on topic but he keeps complaining he doesn't have the time to reply. Mind you that's less than 10 out of around 60+ posts. Then he has the nerve to suggest he just wants to get back on topic. However, every time we give him the opportunity, no reply to the posts at all. But post about terrorism or whether he implied something or whether he declared victory and he's all over it. Might lead one to the impression that he doesn't actually want to discuss the topic and he just wanted to post his conspiracy theory and nothing else. I'm trying to think of the word for that...

Hmmm...I think that word you're thinking of starts with a "T" and ends with a "rolling"...

Hmmm...I think that word you're thinking of starts with a "T" and ends with a "rolling"...

Tampon-rolling? Gross. Why would you bring that up?

EDIT: now let's hold off on the posts, guys, because I want my challenge to be on every page and I don't feel like posting again. He says he wants to get back on topic... I'm going to offer him the chance on every single page until he does it.

No, he'll reply to your post about declaring victory or mine but he'll do ANYTHING but actually discuss the topic at hand.
*hands Jocabia a $1 bill* :D

to be honest Jocabia... that firework image and "I'm a Pimp again may be OD3 celebrating his forum ranking of "Pimp"
Looks like you have more brains than Jocaiba after all

Looks like you have more brains than Jocaiba after all
you still have alot of points that Jocabia brought up HERE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467706&page=15). <-in case you don't know, that is a link. you click on it with your computer's mouse.

quit stalling or aknowledge defeat.

BTW, won't count this as your third post.

Did you hear the deputy say "Don't get up" as Mr Carrion said "I'm gonna get up now"I played the video many times over..

and i never heard the Cop say "D'ont get up"

as a matter of fact i hear him say "Get up"

So thay's why he should be charged.. and Why Carrion Should NOT be Charged.

BTW, won't count this as your third post.Do you actually think I give a f*ck about your silly ultimatum?

Dude wake up... You are not the center of the universe.:rolleyes:

You mean like the post where you declared victory.(The Fireworks Post) Perhaps you shouldn't have called declaring victory childish since you're the only one who has done so.I did quote you in the post I linked to. Why should I have to do it again? Having trouble reading? Fine.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 :Dyep..I tough you were talking about post#115
I just wanted to make double sure..

Yes I was cellebrating all rite.. but I was NOT Declaring Victory about anything..
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10388205&postcount=115
.
.
to be honest Jocabia... that firework image and "I'm a Pimp again may be OD3 celebrating his forum ranking of "Pimp"
BINGO!!! WE have a winer!! Junii figured it out, I was indeed Celebrating my 1000th Post.

Ahhhh...once again OD3 attacks the one post he can actually defend and completly ignores the posts he as been asked to answer...twice now. Usual trolling tactics, refined by OD3 personally.

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTIONS

I played the video many times over..

and i never heard the Cop say "D'ont get up"

as a matter of fact i hear him say "Get up"

So thay's why he should be charged.. and Why Carrion Should NOT be Charged.now try and listen to the video with earphones on.

and start listening after the two "Okay"'s after the "I'm in the military"

You'll hear the officer saying "Don't get up" while Mr. Carrion is saying "Ok, I'm gonna get up now."

Do you actually think I give a f*ck about your silly ultimatum?

Dude wake up... You are not the center of the universe.:rolleyes:
at least I'm in the universe where everyone else is... don't know where the F*$K you are tho.

must be nice where you are. :rolleyes:

and note: After giving you three chances to prove your points or to refute or concede... You still haven't answered any of the posts. didn't refute anything, didn't try to prove anything.

Congratulations. I do now dub thee a Pimp Rated Troll.

enjoy your pimp status. :D

Looks like you have more brains than Jocaiba after all

And yet Jocabia is capable of posting on topic and discussing the topic while you continue to ignore ALL of our points. Who do you think you're fooling? You've addressed EVERY off-topic post while ignoring the on-topic posts for the most part. The only thing you've actually debated is off-topic, trollish "I didn't declare victory", "I didn't MEAN to imply..." and variations of such. Try discussing the topic. While you may have the minor victory that I thought you were declaring victory when you were just spamming the thread, you have not supported a SINGLE on-topic point. Not once.

I'll offer up the posts you've ignored again.

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?


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



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



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.



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



Emphasis mine.



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?

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.



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.



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.



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.



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. 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, but I am not one of them.


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.

Still waiting for a reply to this that doesn't consist solely of ad hominems and trolling.

Come on. You claimed you wanted to get back on-topic. Do it. Quit twisting in the wind, stand up and address the topic.

Ahhhh...once again OD3 attacks the one post he can actually defend and completly ignores the posts he as been asked to answer...twice now. Usual trolling tactics, refined by OD3 personally.

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTIONS
Twice?!? man you didn't read the thread from the beginning didn't you...

OD3 been pulling this crap after his first couple of posts. :D

for those of you who still have the video... try and listen to it with earphones on. about the 1:10 mark, listen carefully. at first, the deputy is saying "___ get up." and repeats it three times. by the third time, you (or I did) can make out the word "don't" in the deputy's chant. I could hear it the second time, but obviously, Mr. Carrion didn't hear it at all.

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.

Hey, look, everyone... I'm a psychic.

[Posted by Jocabia.]
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?

+++

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.ph...4&postcount=72



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


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.



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



Emphasis mine.



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?

+++

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.



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.



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.



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.



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. 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, but I am not one of them.


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.
[/Posted by Jocabia]

while we're waiting... Looking at the video, is it me or does Mr Carrion have his Right hand in his jacket?

can't tell with that Stupid Exclusive sign on the screen.

Congratulations. I do now dub thee a Pimp Rated Troll.

enjoy your pimp status. :Dthank You :D

BTW I just tried with different Headphones.. and I still do not hear Ivory Webb say "Don't".. I still hear him say "Get up!"

So i still say.. If the Justice system is Fair:
#1- Ivory must be charged.

#2- Carrion should not be Charged. As he was simply doing what he was supposed to do.

BTW I remember the CNN people on the record as a "Get up!" From Ivory Webb.. and they have a better Quality Video clip that what we have.

[Posted by Jocabia.]
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?

+++

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.ph...4&postcount=72



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


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.



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



Emphasis mine.



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?

+++

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.



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.



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.



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.



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. 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, but I am not one of them.


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.
[/Posted by Jocabia]

while we're waiting... Looking at the video, is it me or does Mr Carrion have his Right hand in his jacket?

can't tell with that Stupid Exclusive sign on the screen.
that is a messed up post.

But what about the Tape.. You still hear the "Don't" from Ivory Webb ??

thank You :D

BTW I just tried with different Headphones.. and I still do not hear Ivory Webb say "Don't".. I still hear him say "Get up!"

So i still say.. If the Justice system is Fair:
#1- Ivory must be charged.

#2- Carrion should not be Charged. As he was simply doing what he was supposed to do.

BTW I remember the CNN people on the record as a "Get up!" From Ivory Webb.. and they have a better Quality Video clip that what we have.
Remember, there are people with better equiptment than CNN. so I'd rather wait for the Verdict of the investigation.

Btw, feel free to answer Jocabia's points. mine as well.

that is a messed up post.

But what about the Tape.. You still hear the "Don't" from Ivory Webb ??
Yep,
for those of you who still have the video... try and listen to it with earphones on. about the 1:10 mark, listen carefully. at first, the deputy is saying "___ get up." and repeats it three times. by the third time, you (or I did) can make out the word "don't" in the deputy's chant. I could hear it the second time, but obviously, Mr. Carrion didn't hear it at all.

Remember, there are people with better equiptment than CNN. so I'd rather wait for the Verdict of the investigation.well.. Ivory Webb is keeping his mouth shut.. He is not saying what he said.. using his constitutional rights to the fullest.

WHILE Ivory's Father says.. CNN and the rest of the Media is wrong.. his son did not say "Get Up!!!" but actually said "Shut Up!!!".. :rolleyes:

that is a messed up post.

But what about the Tape.. You still hear the "Don't" from Ivory Webb ??

And yet, no effort to address the original posts that were clear and not messed up. Posts in reply to your own posts. Posts that evidence you are not interested in discussion or debate but avoiding it. And clinging to whatever points you can't be made to look entirely silly on, like debating what was said on the video. How about actually addressing the request for evidence of your own claims of retribution on the videographer? Yes, I know you say it was only a possibility, but when you were asked directly you admitted that you believe things were made worse for the videographer because of the video and I've asked repeatedly for what you base that belief on.

well.. Ivory Webb is keeping his mouth shut.. He is not saying what he said.. probably Lawyers advice.. AND Ivory's Father says His (crazy shooting) son says that CNN and the rest of the Media is wrong.. That his son did not say "Get Up!!!" but actually said "Shut Up!!!".. :rolleyes:
Ivory Webb is not saying anything because there is an investigation going on.

and the media has been wrong before.

And yet, no effort to address the original posts that were clear and not messed up. Posts in reply to your own posts. Posts that evidence you are not interested in discussion or debate but avoiding it. And clinging to whatever points you can't be made to look entirely silly on, like debating what was said on the video. How about actually addressing the request for evidence of your own claims of retribution on the videographer? Yes, I know you say it was only a possibility, but when you were asked directly you admitted that you believe things were made worse for the videographer because of the video and I've asked repeatedly for what you base that belief on.
I think, from this point on, OD3 has nothing to contribute to this. Does anyone else think so also?

oh, and incase you missed my question jocabia...

in the video, does it look like that Mr Carrion has his right hand in his jacket?

that is a messed up post.
wow... ok. so you can read the posts that jocabia has put up. now do the Impossible. ANSWER THEM.

I think, from this point on, OD3 has nothing to contribute to this. Does anyone else think so also?

oh, and incase you missed my question jocabia...

in the video, does it look like that Mr Carrion has his right hand in his jacket?

I didn't miss the question. I just haven't looked yet. Incidentally, from what site are you watching the video? I can hardly see the incident at all.

I didn't miss the question. I just haven't looked yet. Incidentally, from what site are you watching the video? I can hardly see the incident at all.
Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8770396702332615729&q=chino)

well.. Ivory Webb is keeping his mouth shut.. He is not saying what he said.. probably Lawyers advice.. AND Ivory's Father says His (crazy shooting) son says that CNN and the rest of the Media is wrong.. That his son did not say "Get Up!!!" but actually said "Shut Up!!!".. :rolleyes:

Here. Hope replying to this easy to read, clear post replying to your OP. If you're really trying to explore the topic you should have no problem answering these questions.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10384688&postcount=62

How about replying to this one? Nothing messed up about this post. Or are you simply going to ignore it again or spew ad hominems?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408476&postcount=222

How about this one? Interesting that you claim to wish to stay on topic but when someone explains their position you attack them and call what they say 'blah, blah, blah'. If my post is so bad it should be quite simple for you to reply to it. It's not over your head is it?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408608&postcount=223

How about replying to all of Ju's answers to the questions you asked instead of only two?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10410913&postcount=228

You said you were going to later, but you never did. You're not one to lie, are you?

wow... ok. so you can read the posts that jocabia has put up. now do the Impossible. ANSWER THEM.I am not aswering To Jocaiba Blah-Blah-Blah anymore..
He proposed YES-or-NO Questions/answers and he has yet to answer..
I am tired of Babysitting Jocaiba.. (also all his Blah-Blah is off topic)

Now ON TOPIC.. about tape.. No Junii, I DID NOT SEE carrion reach for his pocket. or do anything to that can possibly excuse Webb's criminal action.

I am not aswering To Jocaiba Blah-Blah-Blah anymore.. He proposed YES-or-NO Questions/answers and he has yet to answer.. I am tired of Babysitting Jocaiba.. (also all his Blah-Blah is off topic)

Now ON TOPEC.. about tape.. No Junii, I DID NOT SEE carrion reach for his pocket. or do anything to that can possibly excuse Webb's criminal action.

Translation: Too many words that might dispute my ill-founded accusations, so I'll ignore them as usual.

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

That's the brightest and clearest version I've seen/heard.

Here's what I noticed this time -

Carrion said "I served more time than you" a fairly beligerent statement. He was sooooo clearly drunk.

Now, I do hear it clear. He says, "Don't get up, don't get up", but the don't is fairly faint and I had to turn it up really loud.

Here's what I saw. He is on his hands. Pretty much the whole time. I heard them tell him to get on the ground several times. He was rocking like he was really drunk. He was already getting up when the officer told him not to and then he said "I'm getting up" and the officer fired.

He was the one that said "don't touch me" I think. I don't see that he put his hand in his jacket. Not clearly anyway. He was definitely resisting arrest based on what I saw heard. He was definitely drunk based on what I saw and heard. They were definitely telling him to get on the ground and he never did it, based on what I saw and heard.

Translation: Too many words that might dispute my ill-founded accusations, so I'll ignore them as usual.I would never hire you as a translator.. even Babel Fish is better than you :D

BTW instead of going OFF TOPIC.

Why don't you(Skinny87) watch the Tape and answer Junii Question about the pocket.

and.. Do you hear Webb say "Don't..." ???

That's the brightest and clearest version I've seen/heard.

Here's what I noticed this time -

Carrion said "I served more time than you" a fairly beligerent statement. He was sooooo clearly drunk.

Now, I do hear it clear. He says, "Don't get up, don't get up", but the don't is fairly faint and I had to turn it up really loud.

Here's what I saw. He is on his hands. Pretty much the whole time. I heard them tell him to get on the ground several times. He was rocking like he was really drunk. He was already getting up when the officer told him not to and then he said "I'm getting up" and the officer fired.

He was the one that said "don't touch me" I think. I don't see that he put his hand in his jacket. Not clearly anyway. He was definitely resisting arrest based on what I saw heard. He was definitely drunk based on what I saw and heard. They were definitely telling him to get on the ground and he never did it, based on what I saw and heard.that was the clearest??? my goodness... the version you first saw must've been mostly snow. :p

I am not aswering To Jocaiba Blah-Blah-Blah anymore..
He proposed YES-or-NO Questions/answers and he has yet to answer..
I am tired of Babysitting Jocaiba.. (also all his Blah-Blah is off topic)

Now ON TOPIC.. about tape.. No Junii, I DID NOT SEE carrion reach for his pocket. or do anything to that can possibly excuse Webb's criminal action.

Bwahaha. I have yet to answer? You prove you're a troll. I answered them. You simply didn't like the answer. I proposed making the questions simple, not the answers. When I said yes/no I was referring to the form of the questions. And my questions were simple and asked what you believed so we could move beyond the I said/ I didn't say argument. Your questions not only weren't simple, but some of them were off-topic and designed to drag us more off-topic (interesting choice for someone who claims they are trying to stay on-topic). Your questions didn't ask me what I thought or believed but for truths I couldn't possibly know. Unlike you, I base my answers on evidence.

Keep trolling.

I agree with everything Jocabia said...although his hand does look like its moving somewhere towards his jacket...possibly in his drunken state and the officers adernalin rush, it might have looked like an attempt to gain hold of a weapon of some kind.

See - I answer all questions asked of me OD3.

I agree with everything Jocabia said...although his hand does look like its moving somewhere towards his jacket...possibly in his drunken state and the officers adernalin rush, it might have looked like an attempt to gain hold of a weapon of some kind.

See - I answer all questions asked of me OD3.did you hear the officer say "Don't get up"?

I agree with OD3 on one point, I don't see anything in this video that justifies the shooting and certainly nothing that justifies FOUR SHOTS. I don't believe the officer was trying to kill the suspect because I don't imagine he wouldn't have accomplished it with that many shots had he been trying, but I also don't imagine that this officer was trying to be restrained. I can't see any reason four shots would be justified in the absense of a gun or a direct threat.

I agree with everything Jocabia said...although his hand does look like its moving somewhere towards his jacket...possibly in his drunken state and the officers adernalin rush, it might have looked like an attempt to gain hold of a weapon of some kind.

See - I answer all questions asked of me OD3.

Yes, I did see his hand move towards his jacket (though it's a bit hard to follow), but I don't see anything that looks like he's reaching for a piece. He is DEFINITELY resisting arrest based on what is visible and audible.

I agree with OD3 on one point, I don't see anything in this video that justifies the shooting and certainly nothing that justifies FOUR SHOTS. I don't believe the officer was trying to kill the suspect because I don't imagine he wouldn't have accomplished it with that many shots had he been trying, but I also don't imagine that this officer was trying to be restrained. I can't see any reason four shots would be justified in the absense of a gun or a direct threat.
while i would agree that now, being calm and well... detached.
I can understand the situation.

think about it. After a high speed chase, you are holding a gun on someone on the ground.
that person is drunk (by the sound of his voice,)
has attempted to wrest control of the situation away from the officer (verbally,)
and has admitted to being in the military (thus better trained at marksmanship/close quarter combat than most officers.)

now you are telling him not to get up, and he decides to get up, contrary to what you are saying. Knowing what you know of the person, the officer may have felt threatened enough to open fire.

did you hear the officer say "Don't get up"?

Indeed. He seems to say it several times, last time about half a second before the victim gets up saying 'I'm getting up', and then he fires. Possibly the vic just heard'....get up' and he tries to obey. Or maybe not, the audio isn't perfect. Still, four shots wasn't needed. I don't think he was trying to kill anyone, but he wasn't being restrained either.

I reckon its a regrettable case of a drunk not hearing everything and being belligerant, a hyped up officer trying to defuse a tense and confusing situation and not being completely successful, and it ending in tragedy. I'd say the blame is 50/50 really.

And there's no national police conspiracy to arrest the videotaper - after all, he had outstanding warrants.

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.

As you can see I posted on this earlier. I'm actually fairly well-versed on the phenomena (my company does some work in this area). I agree with most of what you said, most specifically, Carrion not only says he's trained, he says he's better-trained than the officer.

Big HOWEVER though. However, the officer may have had cause to open fire, but he didn't excercise even a modicrum of discretion in doing so. Four shots is a lot. It took a long time to fire those shots and for anyone who has been in that type of situation, it seems like a lot longer when you're there. Everything goes silent and there have even been incidents where people claim to have been able to read the bullet as it left the gun (some bullets are serialized). The effect of this kind of situation is insane and they encourage an overreaction, but my problem is with the degree. One or two shots is an overreaction. Four shots, in my opinion, is a crime.

Indeed. He seems to say it several times, last time about half a second before the victim gets up saying 'I'm getting up', and then he fires. Possibly the vic just heard'....get up' and he tries to obey. Or maybe not, the audio isn't perfect. Still, four shots wasn't needed. I don't think he was trying to kill anyone, but he wasn't being restrained either.

I reckon its a regrettable case of a drunk not hearing everything and being belligerant, a hyped up officer trying to defuse a tense and confusing situation and not being completely successful, and it ending in tragedy. I'd say the blame is 50/50 really.

And there's no national police conspiracy to arrest the videotaper - after all, he had outstanding warrants.

I don't think he was trying to obey. Watch him. He is never completely down. He's not getting so much as he's remaining up. They tell him clearly at the beginning of the video to get on the ground which he definitely did not do. Then he looks as if he's rising further and the officer tells him not to get up and then Carrion tells him is getting up and gets up. Why would Carrion say he was getting up if he was being told to do so? Why would Carrion say that he has more training than the officer if he is cooperating or trying to. It seems as if Carrion was trying to control a situation that he is by law not allowed to control. Carrion attempting to control the situation is in blatant violation of the law and resulted in a police-shooting (at least based on what I could gather from the video).

That said, the officer still fired more times than can be justified, in my book.

I didn't take the time to read through all of the posts, because the original posts contain some majorly faulty logic as Ocean is attempting to use the Socratic method, but is fundamentally ignoring the proper way of using such logic.

His argumentation is:
1. The police don't like having themselves taped.
2. Valdes recorded a police brutality scene.
3. The police arrested him and had him put in jail because he made a tape.

There is one fundamental flaw there. Its the whole freedom of speech, and freedom of press thing that exists in America. You cannot be arrested and put in jail for making a tape. But lets use a more proper reasoning to explain this situation.

1. The police arrest people they find with warrants in their name.
2. Valdes, who has a warrent in his name, made himself in the focus of the police.
3. Because the police found Valdes has a warrant in his name, they arrested him.


You are trying to make the tape the reasoning for his arrest. The tape was only a reason why he was noticable, not the arrest itself. The arrest was the fault of the warrants in his name (which are his fault, btw). So Valdes, knowing he would be arrested if found with warrants, decided to shove himself into the view of the entire US... If anyone is at fault here for it all, it is Valdes because first he decides to break the law, and then when he is getting away with it all, he makes himself noticable.

And yes, it is very sad that his family had to deal with him being arrested, but Valdes really should've realized he would be arrested once people realized who he was.

I didn't take the time to read through all of the posts, because the original posts contain some majorly faulty logic as Ocean is attempting to use the Socratic method, but is fundamentally ignoring the proper way of using such logic.

His argumentation is:
1. The police don't like having themselves taped.
2. Valdes recorded a police brutality scene.
3. The police arrested him and had him put in jail because he made a tape.

There is one fundamental flaw there. Its the whole freedom of speech, and freedom of press thing that exists in America. You cannot be arrested and put in jail for making a tape. But lets use a more proper reasoning to explain this situation.

1. The police arrest people they find with warrants in their name.
2. Valdes, who has a warrent in his name, made himself in the focus of the police.
3. Because the police found Valdes has a warrant in his name, they arrested him.


You are trying to make the tape the reasoning for his arrest. The tape was only a reason why he was noticable, not the arrest itself. The arrest was the fault of the warrants in his name (which are his fault, btw). So Valdes, knowing he would be arrested if found with warrants, decided to shove himself into the view of the entire US... If anyone is at fault here for it all, it is Valdes because first he decides to break the law, and then when he is getting away with it all, he makes himself noticable.

And yes, it is very sad that his family had to deal with him being arrested, but Valdes really should've realized he would be arrested once people realized who he was.

Your arguments make sense but we actually have more information than is originally offered in the article. Valdes was arrested when visiting an immigration office. Without the tape, he would have still been arrested because of a routine check. He was doomed to be caught in time for missing his court dates in FL.

I didn't take the time to read through all of the posts, because the original posts contain some majorly faulty logic as Ocean is attempting to use the Socratic method, but is fundamentally ignoring the proper way of using such logic.

His argumentation is:
1. The police don't like having themselves taped.
2. Valdes recorded a police brutality scene.
3. The police arrested him and had him put in jail because he made a tape.Actually it goes more like this..

1. The police don't like having themselves taped.
2. Valdes recorded a police brutality scene.
>>>>>>>>>so far so good.. but..

3. The reason given for his arrest is an old arrest Warrant.
4. Under the Current system..still not a good idea to mess with the Police.. specially if you have that warrant (BTW Valdes said he had no idea about that old Warrant)

Actually it goes more like this..

1. The police don't like having themselves taped.
2. Valdes recorded a police brutality scene.
>>>>>>>>>so far so good.. but..

3. The reason given for his arrest is an old arrest Warrant.
4. Under the Current system..still not a good idea to mess with the Police.. specially if you have a search warrant (BTW Valdes said he had no idea about that old Warrant)

A search warrant, huh? You're clearly well-versed on this subject, aren't you?

Now, on that point, let's see.

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_3474290

First of all, he wasn't turned in by the cops, but by immigration. So apparently immigration was 'retributing' here.

Valdes went to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office, at 435 W. Mission Blvd., Pomona ,at 10:12 a.m. Friday to renew his immigration status, police said.

Hmmm... interesting group to choose to retribute on behalf of the cops.

Now, let's see what this warrant he 'forgot' about was for.

Jose Luis Valdes, 37, has been sought by Miami-Dade police since 1998 on suspicion of aggravated assault with a firearm.

Yeah, that's one I know I'd forget. And also one that cops would let you slide on so long as you don't have a videotape out there of them shooting someone. Yeah, if you live on Mars.

Now, did they arrest him because of the videotape...

Pomona police said Valdes didn't tell officers he was the cameraman in Sunday's shooting in Chino until after they arrested him.

"I can assure you I had no idea who he was. The officers who arrested him had no idea who he was. Even if they had, we would still handle it the exact same way," said Pomona police Lt. Rick Mackey.

Didn't know who he was, but their magic cop retribution intuition inspired them to arrest him for a warrant that their magic cop retribution inspired them to issue 7 years ago in a completely different state.

A search warrant, huh? You're clearly well-versed on this subject, aren't you?childish
.

...Ocean is attempting to use the Socratic method...Impressed I am..
Are you going to Law School?

childish
.

Actually, I accidentally posted before I was finished. That's what I get for trying to post and play WoW at the same time.

Let me go ahead and post this again, since it's actually an edit on a post I accidentally posted to quickly.


-----
Now, on that point, let's see.

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_3474290

First of all, he wasn't turned in by the cops, but by immigration. So apparently immigration was 'retributing' here.

Valdes went to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office, at 435 W. Mission Blvd., Pomona ,at 10:12 a.m. Friday to renew his immigration status, police said.

Hmmm... interesting group to choose to retribute on behalf of the cops.

Now, let's see what this warrant he 'forgot' about was for.

Jose Luis Valdes, 37, has been sought by Miami-Dade police since 1998 on suspicion of aggravated assault with a firearm.

Yeah, that's one I know I'd forget. And also one that cops would let you slide on so long as you don't have a videotape out there of them shooting someone. Yeah, if you live on Mars.

Now, did they arrest him because of the videotape...

Pomona police said Valdes didn't tell officers he was the cameraman in Sunday's shooting in Chino until after they arrested him.

"I can assure you I had no idea who he was. The officers who arrested him had no idea who he was. Even if they had, we would still handle it the exact same way," said Pomona police Lt. Rick Mackey.

Didn't know who he was, but their magic cop retribution intuition inspired them to arrest him for a warrant that their magic cop retribution inspired them to issue 7 years ago in a completely different state.

Interesting how an off-topic post gets a reply in fifteen minutes and one presenting evidence and explaining how the arrest went down way differently than suggested by OD3 gets a reply in.... well, never.

Alright, enough.

OceanDrive3, you're warned for trolling and flamebaiting. Take a vacation, will you?