LogFAQs > #926773544

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Two NY ex-policemen walk free after raping handcuffed suspect
karlpilkington4 08/31/19 8:49:46 AM #135:	Shablagoo posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Shablagoo posted... A legitimate question that got moderated for breaking the TOS, lol. Because we all know mods are fair and balanced. I was in purgatory for a month for a post that literally didnt violate anything. Or maybe theyre just not blind to horribly mysoginistic and offensive dog whistling. Its not a legitimate question when its unnecessary and already answered in the fucking OP. We all know what he (you) was trying to do. *Seriously, no one ITT is on your side with this. Do you have the capacity to consider that you might* be wrong? First I could give less than a fuck if I'm on your side. The user was 100% attacked and I have not made any real stance on the topic itself before this post, so no there is no way I'm wrong about anything that you could be referring to. Second, you have no idea what I was modded for, so your lackluster attempt to accuse me of dog whistling (whatever the hell that is suppose to mean) is hilarious. Third, you attacked a user for asking a question, when the report in the OP contradicts itself. They weren't charged with rape, the article SPECIFICALLY says that. The woman didn't make any statements in the article, and there is a law that literally allowed what they possibly did. So the confusion for someone to not understand is clear. No one is condoning what they cops did, but the technical aspects are what the other user was asking about. Statements like this FROM THE ARTICLE: "serious credibility issues in this case precluded us from proceeding on additional charges" "The men were initially accused of rape but the charges were later dropped." " a loophole was closed that previously allowed New York police officers to have sex with those in custody as long as it was consensual." "The rape charges were dropped because the victim's credibility was "seriously, seriously questionable"** Not that you'll respond to any of this in good faith. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:926773544] in Two NY ex-... [t:77975549]...</cite> <quote>Shablagoo posted...</cite> <quote>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>Shablagoo posted...</cite> <quote>A legitimate question that got moderated for breaking the TOS, lol. </quote> Because we all know mods are fair and balanced. I was in purgatory for a month for a post that literally didnt violate anything.</quote> Or maybe theyre just not blind to horribly mysoginistic and offensive dog whistling. Its not a legitimate question when its unnecessary and already answered in the fucking OP. We all know what he (you) was trying to do. Seriously, no one ITT is on your side with this. Do you have the capacity to consider that you might be wrong?</quote> First I could give less than a fuck if I'm on your side. The user was 100% attacked and I have not made any real stance on the topic itself before this post, so no there is no way I'm wrong about anything that you could be referring to. Second, you have no idea what I was modded for, so your lackluster attempt to accuse me of dog whistling (whatever the hell that is suppose to mean) is hilarious. Third, you attacked a user for asking a question, when the report in the OP contradicts itself. They weren't charged with rape, the article SPECIFICALLY says that. The woman didn't make any statements in the article, and there is a law that literally allowed what they possibly did. So the confusion for someone to not understand is clear. No one is condoning what they cops did, but the technical aspects are what the other user was asking about. Statements like this FROM THE ARTICLE: "serious credibility issues in this case precluded us from proceeding on additional charges" "The men were initially accused of rape but the charges were later dropped." " a loophole was closed that previously allowed New York police officers to have sex with those in custody as long as it was consensual." "The rape charges were dropped because the victim's credibility was "seriously, seriously questionable" Not that you'll respond to any of this in good faith. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1