• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Indictment in Chokehold Death [W:1903,2680]

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death [W:1903]

Paying insurance monthly means the person actually is taking out a very high interest loan against the insurance premium. People with money don't take out high interest loans nor run big credit card debts - they just pay in full. Annual insurance premiums are so low no one with money finances it monthly (unless she is a DUI with lots of tickets and has to have ongoing proof of insurance to the state - which obviously is the case of the State of Florida wouldn't know her insurance had lapsed).

You left out the part about her as to why the insurance company reported her insurance lapsing to the State, didn't you? Either she had been caught driving without insurance before or has a DUI conviction. Which is it?



In FL if insurance lapses for any reason, the INS Co. must report it to the FL DMV who then send a letter to the driver asking for proof of ins as it could easilly be a mistake of getting new insurance etc.... once that happens the driver has a certain number of days to respond with proof.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

The excuses make no sense, they don't add up.

The claim her ATM card was hacked and she didn't know it - for week after week after week? Nope. Account was overdrawn.

That she make piles of money? Nope. A person who has piles of money doesn't pay insurance monthly as the rate is substantially higher.

That there was no way to know her insurance had lapsed? Nope. 1.) the proof of insurance card would have expired. 2.) the insurance company would have sent her a letter, 3.) State Farm would have sent her an email and 4.) The State of Florida mailed her a notice - all that she ignored.

That the officer wouldn't let her have her cell phone. Don't believe it. Since her bank account was overdrawn likely her pay-as-you-go phone was out of minutes.

That she had to walk 4 miles? If she walked either she wanted to or everyone who knows her - including you - were too busy to go pick her up - as she could have asked any business or stopped at any house asking them to make an emergency call for her.

Now you rant that because you are SPECIAL people because you know police and therefore should not only be totally exempt from law, but that all police officers should be your servants and delivery boys - threatening retaliation against the officer for not violating policy given personal rides while on duty in their cruiser to friends of the police (as you claim anyway). That went nowhere, didn't it?

Your threat of retaliation against the officer is criminal by the way, even if not a threat of violence. You should be arrested and jailed for the threat.

Based upon your messages of your personal views and your personal family that YOU injected into this, never, ever, pretend you are pro law enforcement on principle.

If you don't want a topic to be personal, don't make it personal.

You are making assumptions about how long her card number was changed. It wasn't week after week after week. It all happened in a very short period of time.
And just like you other buddy, I made NO excuse for her letting it happen. But it does happen. Most people, unlike you and hound boy, are not perfect and well "stuff" happens. Yes I got on her for letting it happen. But then again, that was not the point of my relaying the story.
But you MUST make it about another poster in some sort of way. So, you got your wish. Instead of debating the point of the thread.
I only brought it up to show that I don't condone all police behavior. Which I have stated before in this thread, but seems to go right over your head.
I am pro LE, on principal and in practical application. But I am anti "being a prick with a badge" all the time.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death [W:1903]

Paying insurance monthly means the person actually is taking out a very high interest loan against the insurance premium. People with money don't take out high interest loans nor run big credit card debts - they just pay in full. Annual insurance premiums are so low no one with money finances it monthly (unless she is a DUI with lots of tickets and has to have ongoing proof of insurance to the state - which obviously is the case of the State of Florida wouldn't know her insurance had lapsed).

You left out the part about her as to why the insurance company reported her insurance lapsing to the State, didn't you? Either she had been caught driving without insurance before or has a DUI conviction. Which is it?
Wrong again, the car is paid off. My Jimmy and Firebird are paid off and I pay monthly. She has no convictions of any kind, thanks for the negative assumptions about someone you don't know.
Please post your DL with your FL Insurance cert and your LE cert as well before you try to sound "informed".
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

I have to give you credit. You've cornered the market on idiotic posts.

Your two links with my posts that supposedly back up your lying post that claimed I said my kids would never ever get arrested?

Post #1:

My kids won't get arrested for picking seaweed. You keep asking me a ridiculous question. It isn't going to happen. They don't arrest people in NH for picking up seaweed. They also won't get arrested for walking their unicorns without a leash. I won't get arrested for shooting Brad Pitt while he's wearing my husband's boxer shorts. And I already answered the question about supporting the arrest of my children if they get arrested for breaking a law.


Post #2:

My kids won't get arrested for picking up seaweed. My kids would get arrested for selling drugs in school, for breaking into houses, for setting fires to peoples' pets, blowing up our neighbor's house, raping the cheerleaders, murdering the class nerd, and so on. And yup, that's what happens when you break laws.


I am again wasting my time responding to reading comprehension issues.

My kids won't get arrested for picking up seaweed in New Hampshire because people don't get arrested for picking up seaweed in New Hampshire.

Yep and those were your responses to the possibility of your kids being arrested for a crime. Your answer "they wouldn't". That's the avoidance part.

My kids would get arrested if they committed crimes for which our police officers arrest people in New Hampshire.

So police don't arrest people in NH for breaking the law? Gee, I guess you are proving once again the point I've made and which has gone over your head since the beginning. That you saw the posts and still don't believe they constitute attempts by you to deny that your kids would ever be arrested is funny. That you saw the posts and now are ignoring the fact that you used them to declare that your kids wouldn't be arrested that's pretty damning. That you're focusing on the examples used and not the point of the posts is dishonest. I asked you if you supported kids being arrested because they broke the law. What law they broke is irrelevant. The point is that they broke it and you were asked if in such a hypothetical, you'd support them being arrested for breaking those laws. That you spent 4+ posts not understanding that point and refusing to answer the question is pretty telling as to your thoughts on "avoiding confrontation" and "breaking the law".

would support the police for arresting my children for these crimes.

Now go inflict your painfully stupid posts on someone else. I'm tired to educating you. Join an "I hate the police" rally or some other cause that makes you happy.

It's kind of funny that this what you've been reduced to after the point went saliently over your head. You made me look inconsistent Hatuey! You hate the cops! You're getting predictable tres. You may want to work on your anger issues when you're losing a debate or people make points too complex for you.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Moderator's Warning:
There has been a severe drift from the topic of the OP: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Not each other, state laws regarding car insurance or anything else that is not related to: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Please drop the individual and team ping-pong tournaments that are derailing the thread. Leave out personal comments as well and return to that topic. Do not quote nor respond to any made post before this in-thread warning that violates this in-thread warning, either or there will be an escort out of the thread, possibly with points as a parting gift.

Thank you.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Moderator's Warning:
There has been a severe drift from the topic of the OP: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Not each other, state laws regarding car insurance or anything else that is not related to: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Please drop the individual and team ping-pong tournaments that are derailing the thread. Leave out personal comments as well and return to that topic. Do not quote nor respond to any made post before this in-thread warning that violates this in-thread warning, either or there will be an escort out of the thread, possibly with points as a parting gift.

Thank you.

whats your snapchat?
 
Re: NYPD officer in Eric Garner chokehold death not indicted by Staten Island grand j

The "choke hold" had nothing to do with his death. He should have been honest with himself about his health, before he picked a fight with the cops.

Not a word of truth in that.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

As soon as he pulled away, he was resisting.



I think that anyone in that position would instinctively pull away and that should be taken into consideration.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

I do have to say, looking at that video, of those piece of **** tattooed up good 'ol boys all piled up on that guy.. Yeah.. There definitely should have been an indictment and a trial. That was just pure murder.



That said, and I mean that, at the same time, the fat black guy had been arrested over 30 times. The guy was a scumbag clearly and the world is probably a better place without him even though it is regrettable how he had to die.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

I do have to say, looking at that video, of those piece of **** tattooed up good 'ol boys all piled up on that guy.. Yeah.. There definitely should have been an indictment and a trial. That was just pure murder.



That said, and I mean that, at the same time, the fat black guy had been arrested over 30 times. The guy was a scumbag clearly and the world is probably a better place without him even though it is regrettable how he had to die.
Prove intent.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

I do have to say, looking at that video, of those piece of **** tattooed up good 'ol boys all piled up on that guy.. Yeah.. There definitely should have been an indictment and a trial. That was just pure murder.



That said, and I mean that, at the same time, the fat black guy had been arrested over 30 times. The guy was a scumbag clearly and the world is probably a better place without him even though it is regrettable how he had to die.
So now its about tattooed guys.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

I do have to say, looking at that video, of those piece of **** tattooed up good 'ol boys all piled up on that guy.. Yeah.. There definitely should have been an indictment and a trial. That was just pure murder.



That said, and I mean that, at the same time, the fat black guy had been arrested over 30 times. The guy was a scumbag clearly and the world is probably a better place without him even though it is regrettable how he had to die.

Murder charges involve intent. Good luck showing that they intended to kill him.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

I think that anyone in that position would instinctively pull away and that should be taken into consideration.

And that "anyone" would be resisting arrest. But I don't agree with your supposition.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

So now its about tattooed guys.


No. It's about the fact that a group of "Gang-Esq" looking tattooed up cops who look like on their off hours they beat little people at bars with their blubbery arms and bellies piled on a morbidly obese guy, from the looks of it for pseudo legitimate reasons, the guy clearly refused to obey police orders, that said, from a clean cut persons perspective I'm just saying it looks pretty damn bad.

It reeks of "Tattooed up goon squad of good 'ol boys kill fat petty black criminal guy". It just looks bad is all.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

No. It's about the fact that a group of "Gang-Esq" looking tattooed up cops who look like on their off hours they beat little people at bars with their blubbery arms and bellies piled on a morbidly obese guy, from the looks of it for pseudo legitimate reasons, the guy clearly refused to obey police orders, that said, from a clean cut persons perspective I'm just saying it looks pretty damn bad.

It reeks of "Tattooed up goon squad of good 'ol boys kill fat petty black criminal guy". It just looks bad is all.
Seeing as I live in the land of "good ole boys" I can attest that most are not heavily tatted.
So you are "clean cut", whooppie. Means nothing because I couldn't care less what you think of tattooed people.
He was also a many time arrested individual, meaning he knew the drill. He knew the dangers of pushing back and resisting.
I have no sympathy.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Seeing as I live in the land of "good ole boys" I can attest that most are not heavily tatted.
So you are "clean cut", whooppie. Means nothing because I couldn't care less what you think of tattooed people.
He was also a many time arrested individual, meaning he knew the drill. He knew the dangers of pushing back and resisting.
I have no sympathy.

I'm just saying, when the "Cops" look more "Gang-Esq" via tattoos than the bad guy in question, that can't be a good thing for the justice system in this country.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

I'm just saying, when the "Cops" look more "Gang-Esq" via tattoos than the bad guy in question, that can't be a good thing for the justice system in this country.

Aint the 50s Mayberry any more.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Aint the 50s Mayberry any more.


I don't think it's that big of a deal either. All cops are or have ever been are basically the guys that beat people at bars on their off hours. Everyone knows that cops are full of testosterone and probably would be out fighting if it wasn't for them being a cop instead. So no. It's not surprising that the cops are all tattooed up. Many cops are. That's fundamentally why these killings will never stop. The people who become cops are a pretty unstable crowd to begin with and aren't generally your 9-5 guy.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

I don't think it's that big of a deal either. All cops are or have ever been are basically the guys that beat people at bars on their off hours. Everyone knows that cops are full of testosterone and probably would be out fighting if it wasn't for them being a cop instead. So no. It's not surprising that the cops are all tattooed up. Many cops are. That's fundamentally why these killings will never stop. The people who become cops are a pretty unstable crowd to begin with and aren't generally your 9-5 guy.
Your cop hate runethover. I know more people that are not cops that are vicious bar fighters.
 
Back
Top Bottom