Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So he should be punished for not making sense?Taking someone out of their car for safety doesnt make sense unless we are supposed to believe the thoughts a cop gives automatically and cast aside reasoning and suspend disbelief. I think he'd have to explain why the stop wasnt safe to begin with but thats on video....cant lie about that champ
Perjury is a crime isnt it?
Have cops never been run over in the side lanes?
Yes, but thats not his defense
You're trying to provide defenses he isnt presenting which means you're fishing for reasons why lying is ok.
You cant prove it, genius. Which is my whole argument. No one but him knows what he is thinking. It is beyond insane to punish hypotheticalsSo he should be punished for not making sense?Taking someone out of their car for safety doesnt make sense unless we are supposed to believe the thoughts a cop gives automatically and cast aside reasoning and suspend disbelief. I think he'd have to explain why the stop wasnt safe to begin with but thats on video....cant lie about that champ
Perjury is a crime isnt it?
Have cops never been run over in the side lanes?
Yes, but thats not his defense
You're trying to provide defenses he isnt presenting which means you're fishing for reasons why lying is ok.
This is an issue of fact not law.
In other words, the grand jury is not buying your type of defense.
The grand jury believes he lied.
The DA is not stressed at all.
Taking someone out of their car for safety doesnt make sense unless we are supposed to believe the thoughts a cop gives automatically and cast aside reasoning and suspend disbelief. I think he'd have to explain why the stop wasnt safe to begin with but thats on video....cant lie about that champ
Well guess what....Supreme Court ruling Maryland vs Wilson grants cops that authority. All the other jibberish you've types is irrelevant because the LAW allows him to do what he did..
He has the authority just not the circumstances to back up his thinking. He already said it was to make it safer, not that he has the authority.
He should've led with that...but instead he lied and wont be able to back it up.
Big deal, I know
What PROOF is there that isn't his reason?
Just because you don't believe it?
Some criminals will act belligerent to get cops to back off and not discover what they're hiding. That's why Maryland vs Wilson granted this blanket authority to cops for safety to remove someone....because the cop CANNOT know what he doesn't know....whether the person is hiding something.
You can't prove what he was thinking. He doesn't have to prove it. The simple unknown in itself is enough to justify the safety concern.....and the SUPREME COURT agreed....because they made it legal to remove someone "for safety" even without any clear facts of what it is that is unsafe...because the cop cannot know what he doesn't know.
You cant prove it, genius. Which is my whole argument. No one but him knows what he is thinking. It is beyond insane to punish hypotheticalsSo he should be punished for not making sense?Taking someone out of their car for safety doesnt make sense unless we are supposed to believe the thoughts a cop gives automatically and cast aside reasoning and suspend disbelief. I think he'd have to explain why the stop wasnt safe to begin with but thats on video....cant lie about that champ
Perjury is a crime isnt it?
Have cops never been run over in the side lanes?
Yes, but thats not his defense
You're trying to provide defenses he isnt presenting which means you're fishing for reasons why lying is ok.
So he should be punished for not making sense?Taking someone out of their car for safety doesnt make sense unless we are supposed to believe the thoughts a cop gives automatically and cast aside reasoning and suspend disbelief. I think he'd have to explain why the stop wasnt safe to begin with but thats on video....cant lie about that champ
Perjury is a crime isnt it?
Have cops never been run over in the side lanes?
Yes, but thats not his defense
You're trying to provide defenses he isnt presenting which means you're fishing for reasons why lying is ok.
His defense is Maryland vs. Wilson. Clearly states a cop can remove a person "for safety"
what contradicts what?You cant prove it, genius. Which is my whole argument. No one but him knows what he is thinking. It is beyond insane to punish hypotheticalsSo he should be punished for not making sense?Taking someone out of their car for safety doesnt make sense unless we are supposed to believe the thoughts a cop gives automatically and cast aside reasoning and suspend disbelief. I think he'd have to explain why the stop wasnt safe to begin with but thats on video....cant lie about that champ
Perjury is a crime isnt it?
Have cops never been run over in the side lanes?
Yes, but thats not his defense
You're trying to provide defenses he isnt presenting which means you're fishing for reasons why lying is ok.
He lied and the tape contridicts him. Thats his fault and no one elses
what contradicts what?You cant prove it, genius. Which is my whole argument. No one but him knows what he is thinking. It is beyond insane to punish hypotheticalsSo he should be punished for not making sense?Taking someone out of their car for safety doesnt make sense unless we are supposed to believe the thoughts a cop gives automatically and cast aside reasoning and suspend disbelief. I think he'd have to explain why the stop wasnt safe to begin with but thats on video....cant lie about that champ
Perjury is a crime isnt it?
Have cops never been run over in the side lanes?
Yes, but thats not his defense
You're trying to provide defenses he isnt presenting which means you're fishing for reasons why lying is ok.
He lied and the tape contridicts him. Thats his fault and no one elses
The preliminary hearing will exonerate the LEO.
Who was placed in danger by Ms. Bland not using her turn signal? No one.And you little commie fucktards are just doing a happy dance all over the place, now that a completely innocent man has been indicted and fired for doing his job protecting the public.
When the LEO asked her to put out the cigarette she refused to comply.
All LEO are trained to 'secure the scene' for their own safety. Ever had someone flick a lit cigarette in your face?
The LEO now has the police union lawyers defending him.
This case will turn out like 99% of other cases: LEO is found not guilty. LEO settles with the city. LEO wins the fucking lottery in essence.
what contradicts what?You cant prove it, genius. Which is my whole argument. No one but him knows what he is thinking. It is beyond insane to punish hypotheticalsSo he should be punished for not making sense?
Perjury is a crime isnt it?
Have cops never been run over in the side lanes?
Yes, but thats not his defense
You're trying to provide defenses he isnt presenting which means you're fishing for reasons why lying is ok.
He lied and the tape contridicts him. Thats his fault and no one elses
His story contradicts the tape. Its really simple.
Can you not elaborate? I mean, really...what contradicts what?You cant prove it, genius. Which is my whole argument. No one but him knows what he is thinking. It is beyond insane to punish hypotheticalsSo he should be punished for not making sense?
Perjury is a crime isnt it?
Have cops never been run over in the side lanes?
Yes, but thats not his defense
You're trying to provide defenses he isnt presenting which means you're fishing for reasons why lying is ok.
He lied and the tape contridicts him. Thats his fault and no one elses
His story contradicts the tape. Its really simple.
what contradicts what?You cant prove it, genius. Which is my whole argument. No one but him knows what he is thinking. It is beyond insane to punish hypotheticalsPerjury is a crime isnt it?
Yes, but thats not his defense
You're trying to provide defenses he isnt presenting which means you're fishing for reasons why lying is ok.
He lied and the tape contridicts him. Thats his fault and no one elses
His story contradicts the tape. Its really simple.
What SPECIFIC facts contradict?
Can you not elaborate? I mean, really...what contradicts what?You cant prove it, genius. Which is my whole argument. No one but him knows what he is thinking. It is beyond insane to punish hypotheticalsPerjury is a crime isnt it?
Yes, but thats not his defense
You're trying to provide defenses he isnt presenting which means you're fishing for reasons why lying is ok.
He lied and the tape contridicts him. Thats his fault and no one elses
His story contradicts the tape. Its really simple.
So you don't know HOW the story contradicts the tape, you just believe it does. Amirite?Can you not elaborate? I mean, really...what contradicts what?You cant prove it, genius. Which is my whole argument. No one but him knows what he is thinking. It is beyond insane to punish hypotheticals
He lied and the tape contridicts him. Thats his fault and no one elses
His story contradicts the tape. Its really simple.
On what? The information the Grand Jury knows?
No I cannot because I'd be making it up, like you did when you offered defenses that is not being presented
