Current Events > Judge ruled officers had no duty to protect students in parkland shooting.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
A_Good_Boy 12/19/18 3:00:32 PM #153:	Cops aren't required to protect people. Cops aren't required to follow their training or department policies. Cops aren't required to understand the laws they're enforcing. Just what exactly is the point of having cops? --- Who is? I am! <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:914399560] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote>Cops aren't required to protect people. Cops aren't required to follow their training or department policies. Cops aren't required to understand the laws they're enforcing. Just what exactly is the point of having cops?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 12/19/18 3:00:43 PM #154:	If cops don't have a 'duty to protect,' will liberals FINALLY stop saying we don't need guns because we have cops? Seriously, you can't disarm the populace AND say the cops don't need to protect you. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:914399565] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote>If cops don't have a 'duty to protect,' will liberals FINALLY stop saying we don't need guns because we have cops? Seriously, you can't disarm the populace AND say the cops don't need to protect you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CADE FOSTER 12/19/18 3:02:28 PM #155:	Cops wear vests and have guns and are trained where as most of these shooters are losers with guns cowardice tbh he could have saved alot of those kids --- https://imgtc.com/i/HXEuaL9.jpg https://imgtc.com/i/xZ5hGDm.jpg https://imgtc.com/i/UZiqG9l.jpg <cite>CADE FOSTER posted [p:914399662] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote>Cops wear vests and have guns and are trained where as most of these shooters are losers with guns cowardice tbh he could have saved alot of those kids</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 12/19/18 3:03:01 PM #156:	JE19426 posted... Becaause he's saying the assertions could could support liability for Peterson. If the assertions aren't true they couldn't support liability for Peterson. Could you rephrase that? --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:914399688] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Becaause he's saying the assertions could could support liability for Peterson. If the assertions aren't true they couldn't support liability for Peterson.</quote> Could you rephrase that?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 12/19/18 3:03:50 PM #157:	Webmaster4531 posted... Could you rephrase that? Why? What part is unclear? <cite>JE19426 posted [p:914399717] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>Could you rephrase that? </quote> Why? What part is unclear?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 12/19/18 3:08:54 PM #158:	JE19426 posted... Webmaster4531 posted... Could you rephrase that? Why? What part is unclear? The first sentence is just a paraphrasing of the quote. The second sentence is a nonsequitur. None of it explains how I might somehow think he thinks this is definitely true. --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:914399968] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>Could you rephrase that? </quote> Why? What part is unclear?</quote> The first sentence is just a paraphrasing of the quote. The second sentence is a nonsequitur. None of it explains how I might somehow think he thinks this is definitely true.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 12/19/18 3:12:18 PM #159:	Webmaster4531 posted... The second sentence is a nonsequitur. Really? You think an assertation that isn't true can support anything? <cite>JE19426 posted [p:914400137] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>The second sentence is a nonsequitur.</quote> Really? You think an assertation that isn't true can support anything?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 12/19/18 3:17:52 PM #160:	JE19426 posted... Webmaster4531 posted... The second sentence is a nonsequitur. Really? You think an assertation that isn't true can support anything? Yes, your sentence really is a nonsequitur. Answer to the second question is no. --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:914400445] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>The second sentence is a nonsequitur.</quote> Really? You think an assertation that isn't true can support anything?</quote> Yes, your sentence really is a nonsequitur. Answer to the second question is no.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 12/19/18 3:18:31 PM #161:	Damn_Underscore posted... Tmaster148 posted... I mean. If cops don't have to protect people then what's the point in paying for them with our taxes. Seems like wasteful spending. You really think we shouldn't have police forces? If they literally don't have to do their job, there's no point in having them. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:914400483] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean. If cops don't have to protect people then what's the point in paying for them with our taxes. Seems like wasteful spending.</quote> You really think we shouldn't have police forces?</quote> If they literally don't have to do their job, there's no point in having them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 12/19/18 3:20:36 PM #162:	Webmaster4531 posted... Yes, your sentence really is a nonsequitur. Answer to the second question is no. You are contradicting yourself right here. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:914400577] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes, your sentence really is a nonsequitur. Answer to the second question is no. </quote> You are contradicting yourself right here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 12/19/18 3:20:54 PM #163:	JE19426 posted... Webmaster4531 posted... Yes, your sentence really is a nonsequitur. Answer to the second question is no. You are contradicting yourself right here. How? --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:914400594] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes, your sentence really is a nonsequitur. Answer to the second question is no. </quote> You are contradicting yourself right here.</quote> How?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 12/19/18 3:24:47 PM #164:	Webmaster4531 posted... How? Because you are trying to say that this is a nonsequitur: If the assertions aren't true they couldn't support liability for Peterson. While also saying that an assertion that isn't true can't support anything. Those are two statements contradict each other. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:914400778] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>How? </quote> Because you are trying to say that this is a nonsequitur: <quote>If the assertions aren't true they couldn't support liability for Peterson.</quote> While also saying that an assertion that isn't true can't support anything. Those are two statements contradict each other.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 12/19/18 3:44:47 PM #165:	JE19426 posted... Webmaster4531 posted... How? Because you are trying to say that this is a nonsequitur: If the assertions aren't true they couldn't support liability for Peterson. While also saying that an assertion that isn't true can't support anything. Those are two statements contradict each other. Took me a while to see your misunderstanding I'm not saying that "They couldn't support liability for Peterson" is a nonsequitur to "If the assertions aren't true." Your previous statement said "Because he's saying the assertions could support liability for Peterson." Before "If the assertions aren't true they couldn't support liability for Peterson." Still have no idea what you're trying to say --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:914401824] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>How? </quote> Because you are trying to say that this is a nonsequitur: <quote>If the assertions aren't true they couldn't support liability for Peterson.</quote> While also saying that an assertion that isn't true can't support anything. Those are two statements contradict each other.</quote> Took me a while to see your misunderstanding I'm not saying that "They couldn't support liability for Peterson" is a nonsequitur to "If the assertions aren't true." Your previous statement said "Because he's saying the assertions could support liability for Peterson." Before "If the assertions aren't true they couldn't support liability for Peterson." Still have no idea what you're trying to say</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
tremain07 12/19/18 3:46:47 PM #166:	A_Good_Boy posted... Cops aren't required to protect people. Cops aren't required to follow their training or department policies. Cops aren't required to understand the laws they're enforcing. Just what exactly is the point of having cops? To protect local government officials and assets --- IGN: Sun FC: 0061-0132-7564 <cite>tremain07 posted [p:914401947] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote>Cops aren't required to protect people. Cops aren't required to follow their training or department policies. Cops aren't required to understand the laws they're enforcing. Just what exactly is the point of having cops?</quote> To protect local government officials and assets</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 12/19/18 3:48:16 PM #167:	Webmaster4531 posted... Took me a while to see your misunderstanding I'm not saying that "They couldn't support liability for Peterson" is a nonsequitur to "If the assertions aren't true." So what is my nonsequitur. Your previous statement said "Because he's saying the assertions could support liability for Peterson." Before "If the assertions aren't true they couldn't support liability for Peterson." Still have no idea what you're trying to say What part of those statements are confusing you? They seem pretty clear to me. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:914402020] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>Took me a while to see your misunderstanding I'm not saying that "They couldn't support liability for Peterson" is a nonsequitur to "If the assertions aren't true." </quote> So what is my nonsequitur. <quote>Your previous statement said "Because he's saying the assertions could support liability for Peterson." Before "If the assertions aren't true they couldn't support liability for Peterson." Still have no idea what you're trying to say </quote> What part of those statements are confusing you? They seem pretty clear to me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 12/19/18 3:52:58 PM #168:	tremain07 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... Cops aren't required to protect people. Cops aren't required to follow their training or department policies. Cops aren't required to understand the laws they're enforcing. Just what exactly is the point of having cops? To protect local government officials and assets According to the judge, cops are only duty-bound to protect criminals. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:914402292] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>tremain07 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote>Cops aren't required to protect people. Cops aren't required to follow their training or department policies. Cops aren't required to understand the laws they're enforcing. Just what exactly is the point of having cops?</quote> To protect local government officials and assets</quote> According to the judge, cops are only duty-bound to protect criminals.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 12/19/18 3:54:09 PM #169:	darkjedilink posted... tremain07 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... Cops aren't required to protect people. Cops aren't required to follow their training or department policies. Cops aren't required to understand the laws they're enforcing. Just what exactly is the point of having cops? To protect local government officials and assets According to the judge, cops are only duty-bound to protect criminals. That's being a bit disengious. The judge said anyone in their custody. Which can be criminals but not always. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:914402365] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>tremain07 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote>Cops aren't required to protect people. Cops aren't required to follow their training or department policies. Cops aren't required to understand the laws they're enforcing. Just what exactly is the point of having cops?</quote> To protect local government officials and assets</quote> According to the judge, cops are only duty-bound to protect criminals.</quote> That's being a bit disengious. The judge said anyone in their custody. Which can be criminals but not always.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 12/19/18 3:57:23 PM #170:	Tmaster148 posted... darkjedilink posted... tremain07 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... Cops aren't required to protect people. Cops aren't required to follow their training or department policies. Cops aren't required to understand the laws they're enforcing. Just what exactly is the point of having cops? To protect local government officials and assets According to the judge, cops are only duty-bound to protect criminals. That's being a bit disengious. The judge said anyone in their custody. Which can be criminals but not always. Who else would be in their custody, other than mental patients? --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:914402520] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>tremain07 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote>Cops aren't required to protect people. Cops aren't required to follow their training or department policies. Cops aren't required to understand the laws they're enforcing. Just what exactly is the point of having cops?</quote> To protect local government officials and assets</quote> According to the judge, cops are only duty-bound to protect criminals.</quote> That's being a bit disengious. The judge said anyone in their custody. Which can be criminals but not always.</quote> Who else would be in their custody, other than mental patients?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 12/19/18 3:58:52 PM #171:	darkjedilink posted... Tmaster148 posted... darkjedilink posted... tremain07 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... Cops aren't required to protect people. Cops aren't required to follow their training or department policies. Cops aren't required to understand the laws they're enforcing. Just what exactly is the point of having cops? To protect local government officials and assets According to the judge, cops are only duty-bound to protect criminals. That's being a bit disengious. The judge said anyone in their custody. Which can be criminals but not always. Who else would be in their custody, other than mental patients? You do know the police can arrest innocent people. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:914402605] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>tremain07 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote>Cops aren't required to protect people. Cops aren't required to follow their training or department policies. Cops aren't required to understand the laws they're enforcing. Just what exactly is the point of having cops?</quote> To protect local government officials and assets</quote> According to the judge, cops are only duty-bound to protect criminals.</quote> That's being a bit disengious. The judge said anyone in their custody. Which can be criminals but not always.</quote> Who else would be in their custody, other than mental patients?</quote> You do know the police can arrest innocent people.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Thaddeus_J_Pibb 12/19/18 3:59:33 PM #172:	American cops are the biggest fucking cowards on planet. Maybe if whoever called in the shooting had said the shooter was black they would've actually done something instead of kicking back jerking each other off saying "Lets just see how this plays out" --- When little boys don't get 8 hours of sleep, their glands emit a pleasant berry smell that attracts pedophiles. <cite>Thaddeus_J_Pibb posted [p:914402650] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote>American cops are the biggest fucking cowards on planet. Maybe if whoever called in the shooting had said the shooter was black they would've actually done something instead of kicking back jerking each other off saying "Lets just see how this plays out"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 12/19/18 4:02:36 PM #173:	Tmaster148 posted... darkjedilink posted... Tmaster148 posted... darkjedilink posted... tremain07 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... Cops aren't required to protect people. Cops aren't required to follow their training or department policies. Cops aren't required to understand the laws they're enforcing. Just what exactly is the point of having cops? To protect local government officials and assets According to the judge, cops are only duty-bound to protect criminals. That's being a bit disengious. The judge said anyone in their custody. Which can be criminals but not always. Who else would be in their custody, other than mental patients? You do know the police can arrest innocent people. And you do know that doesn't help the point AT ALL right? --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:914402821] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>tremain07 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote>Cops aren't required to protect people. Cops aren't required to follow their training or department policies. Cops aren't required to understand the laws they're enforcing. Just what exactly is the point of having cops?</quote> To protect local government officials and assets</quote> According to the judge, cops are only duty-bound to protect criminals.</quote> That's being a bit disengious. The judge said anyone in their custody. Which can be criminals but not always.</quote> Who else would be in their custody, other than mental patients?</quote> You do know the police can arrest innocent people.</quote> And you do know that doesn't help the point AT ALL right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 12/19/18 4:04:46 PM #174:	darkjedilink posted... Tmaster148 posted... darkjedilink posted... Tmaster148 posted... darkjedilink posted... tremain07 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... Cops aren't required to protect people. Cops aren't required to follow their training or department policies. Cops aren't required to understand the laws they're enforcing. Just what exactly is the point of having cops? To protect local government officials and assets According to the judge, cops are only duty-bound to protect criminals. That's being a bit disengious. The judge said anyone in their custody. Which can be criminals but not always. Who else would be in their custody, other than mental patients? You do know the police can arrest innocent people. And you do know that doesn't help the point AT ALL right? It does. When police arrest someone they have 24 hours (in normal situations) to charge the person with a crime or let them go. And even if a criminal charge is made that requires a court of law to declare you guilty. Essentially as far as law is concerned people under police custody by arrest are innocent. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:914402922] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>tremain07 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote>Cops aren't required to protect people. Cops aren't required to follow their training or department policies. Cops aren't required to understand the laws they're enforcing. Just what exactly is the point of having cops?</quote> To protect local government officials and assets</quote> According to the judge, cops are only duty-bound to protect criminals.</quote> That's being a bit disengious. The judge said anyone in their custody. Which can be criminals but not always.</quote> Who else would be in their custody, other than mental patients?</quote> You do know the police can arrest innocent people.</quote> And you do know that doesn't help the point AT ALL right?</quote> It does. When police arrest someone they have 24 hours (in normal situations) to charge the person with a crime or let them go. And even if a criminal charge is made that requires a court of law to declare you guilty. Essentially as far as law is concerned people under police custody by arrest are innocent.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 12/19/18 4:36:14 PM #176:	JE19426 posted... Webmaster4531 posted... Took me a while to see your misunderstanding I'm not saying that "They couldn't support liability for Peterson" is a nonsequitur to "If the assertions aren't true." So what is my nonsequitur. Your previous statement said "Because he's saying the assertions could support liability for Peterson." Before "If the assertions aren't true they couldn't support liability for Peterson." Still have no idea what you're trying to say What part of those statements are confusing you? They seem pretty clear to me. It's doesn't prove that I said Hutchinson said the statements are definitely true. He said they could be true that Peterson is liable. He'd say it was impossible if it was impossible. Peterson being liable would be impossible if Peterson was doing what he was supposed to. --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:914404577] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>Took me a while to see your misunderstanding I'm not saying that "They couldn't support liability for Peterson" is a nonsequitur to "If the assertions aren't true." </quote> So what is my nonsequitur. <quote>Your previous statement said "Because he's saying the assertions could support liability for Peterson." Before "If the assertions aren't true they couldn't support liability for Peterson." Still have no idea what you're trying to say </quote> What part of those statements are confusing you? They seem pretty clear to me.</quote> It's doesn't prove that I said Hutchinson said the statements are definitely true. He said they could be true that Peterson is liable. He'd say it was impossible if it was impossible. Peterson being liable would be impossible if Peterson was doing what he was supposed to.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 12/19/18 4:39:38 PM #177:	Tmaster148 posted... I mean. If cops don't have to protect people then what's the point in paying for them with our taxes. Seems like wasteful spending. They don't. And I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly. They respond to crimes, they don't intervene. Unfortunately we don't have much in the way of alternatives. --- 7D ChessMaster of Dark Aether https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:914404767] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean. If cops don't have to protect people then what's the point in paying for them with our taxes. Seems like wasteful spending.</quote> They don't. And I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly. They respond to crimes, they don't intervene. Unfortunately we don't have much in the way of alternatives.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 12/19/18 5:01:16 PM #178:	Webmaster4531 posted... It's doesn't prove that I said Hutchinson said the statements are definitely true. He said they could be true that Peterson is liable. He'd say it was impossible if it was impossible. Peterson being liable would be impossible if Peterson was doing what he was supposed to. Ah, contradicting yourself again. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:914405832] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>It's doesn't prove that I said Hutchinson said the statements are definitely true. He said they could be true that Peterson is liable. He'd say it was impossible if it was impossible. Peterson being liable would be impossible if Peterson was doing what he was supposed to. </quote> Ah, contradicting yourself again.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 12/19/18 5:19:43 PM #179:	Guess, I have to ask how again. --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:914406819] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote>Guess, I have to ask how again.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 12/19/18 5:20:47 PM #180:	P4wn4g3 posted... Tmaster148 posted... I mean. If cops don't have to protect people then what's the point in paying for them with our taxes. Seems like wasteful spending. They don't. And I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly. They respond to crimes, they don't intervene. Unfortunately we don't have much in the way of alternatives. We most certainly do - it's called the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:914406883] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean. If cops don't have to protect people then what's the point in paying for them with our taxes. Seems like wasteful spending.</quote> They don't. And I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly. They respond to crimes, they don't intervene. Unfortunately we don't have much in the way of alternatives.</quote> We most certainly do - it's called the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 12/19/18 5:22:41 PM #181:	darkjedilink posted... P4wn4g3 posted... Tmaster148 posted... I mean. If cops don't have to protect people then what's the point in paying for them with our taxes. Seems like wasteful spending. They don't. And I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly. They respond to crimes, they don't intervene. Unfortunately we don't have much in the way of alternatives. We most certainly do - it's called the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. That only works until the cops shoot you. --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:914406958] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean. If cops don't have to protect people then what's the point in paying for them with our taxes. Seems like wasteful spending.</quote> They don't. And I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly. They respond to crimes, they don't intervene. Unfortunately we don't have much in the way of alternatives.</quote> We most certainly do - it's called the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.</quote> That only works until the cops shoot you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 12/19/18 5:30:50 PM #182:	Webmaster4531 posted... Guess, I have to ask how again. Because you are claiming: It's doesn't prove that I said Hutchinson said the statements are definitely true. and He said they could be true that Peterson is liable. He'd say it was impossible if it was impossible. Peterson being liable would be impossible if Peterson was doing what he was supposed to. Which are contradictory positions. If Peterson was doing what he was told he wouldn't be negligent. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:914407359] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>Guess, I have to ask how again.</quote> Because you are claiming: <quote>It's doesn't prove that I said Hutchinson said the statements are definitely true. </quote> and <quote>He said they could be true that Peterson is liable. He'd say it was impossible if it was impossible. Peterson being liable would be impossible if Peterson was doing what he was supposed to. </quote> Which are contradictory positions. If Peterson was doing what he was told he wouldn't be negligent.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Catgirl Fondler 12/19/18 5:45:33 PM #183:	Pigs gonna squeal and hide. --- N/A <cite>The Catgirl Fondler posted [p:914407995] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote>Pigs gonna squeal and hide.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheY2AProblem 12/19/18 5:49:10 PM #184:	I guess to protect and serve is just a suggestion now. --- If anyone needs me, I'll be in the Angry Dome http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1217-the-angry-dome <cite>TheY2AProblem posted [p:914408171] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote>I guess to protect and serve is just a suggestion now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 12/19/18 5:51:57 PM #185:	TheY2AProblem posted... I guess to protect and serve is just a suggestion now. I wouldn't say it's a suggestion anymore. We're basically saying "you don't have to protect people if you don't want to." --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:914408288] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheY2AProblem posted...</cite> <quote>I guess to protect and serve is just a suggestion now.</quote> I wouldn't say it's a suggestion anymore. We're basically saying "you don't have to protect people if you don't want to."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 12/19/18 6:07:56 PM #186:	darkjedilink posted... P4wn4g3 posted... Tmaster148 posted... I mean. If cops don't have to protect people then what's the point in paying for them with our taxes. Seems like wasteful spending. They don't. And I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly. They respond to crimes, they don't intervene. Unfortunately we don't have much in the way of alternatives. We most certainly do - it's called the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Probably the dumbest thing I've seen you say --- 7D ChessMaster of Dark Aether https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:914409022] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean. If cops don't have to protect people then what's the point in paying for them with our taxes. Seems like wasteful spending.</quote> They don't. And I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly. They respond to crimes, they don't intervene. Unfortunately we don't have much in the way of alternatives.</quote> We most certainly do - it's called the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.</quote> Probably the dumbest thing I've seen you say</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nepsy 12/19/18 6:08:54 PM #187:	Libs complain all the time when the Police do their jobs though --- Megadimension Neptunia VII - http://error1355.com/ce/Nepsy.html http://img.gamefaqs.net/box/6/8/2/584682_front.jpg <cite>Nepsy posted [p:914409064] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote>Libs complain all the time when the Police do their jobs though</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 12/19/18 6:24:36 PM #188:	JE19426 posted... If Peterson was doing what he was told he wouldn't be negligent. Yet the expert says he could be liable. --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:914409844] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>If Peterson was doing what he was told he wouldn't be negligent.</quote> Yet the expert says he could be liable.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 12/19/18 6:29:57 PM #189:	Webmaster4531 posted... Yet the expert says he could be liable. If he was negligent. The key part being if. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:914410121] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>Yet the expert says he could be liable. </quote> If he was negligent. The key part being if.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dave_is_slick 12/19/18 6:32:13 PM #190:	JE19426 posted... Webmaster4531 posted... Yet the expert says he could be liable. If he was negligent. The key part being if. Are you just not reading? Webmaster4531 posted... Yet the expert says he could be liable. Pretty sure that was always implied. --- The most relaxing version of Aquatic Ambiance I've ever heard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl61y1XM7sM <cite>dave_is_slick posted [p:914410232] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>Yet the expert says he could be liable. </quote> If he was negligent. The key part being if.</quote> Are you just not reading? <cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>Yet the expert says he could be liable.</quote> Pretty sure that was always implied.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 12/19/18 6:33:22 PM #191:	JE19426 posted... Webmaster4531 posted... Yet the expert says he could be liable. If he was negligent. The key part being if. He never said if. --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:914410288] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>Yet the expert says he could be liable. </quote> If he was negligent. The key part being if.</quote> He never said if.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Uncle Choad 12/19/18 6:36:06 PM #192:	So do we protest for or against the police now? Instructions please. --- Oden ska fa sin hamnd. Jag ska doda er alla, sen ska jag dricka mjod med honom. <cite>Uncle Choad posted [p:914410417] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote>So do we protest for or against the police now? Instructions please.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 12/19/18 6:39:33 PM #193:	Webmaster4531 posted... He never said if. He said the assertions could mean Peterson was liable, one of the assertions is that Peterson is liable, if Peterson wasn't liable clearly that assertion isn't true. dave_is_slick posted... Are you just not reading? Yes I'm reading, try doing it yourself, and not just jumping in the middle of the conversation. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:914410569] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>He never said if. </quote> He said the assertions could mean Peterson was liable, one of the assertions is that Peterson is liable, if Peterson wasn't liable clearly that assertion isn't true. <cite>dave_is_slick posted...</cite> <quote>Are you just not reading? </quote> Yes I'm reading, try doing it yourself, and not just jumping in the middle of the conversation.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 12/19/18 6:39:34 PM #194:	Uncle Choad posted... So do we protest for or against the police now? Instructions please. Call your representative and ask them to make an amendment to the constitution requiring police to protect and serve. --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:914410571] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>Uncle Choad posted...</cite> <quote>So do we protest for or against the police now? Instructions please.</quote> Call your representative and ask them to make an amendment to the constitution requiring police to protect and serve.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 12/19/18 6:40:48 PM #195:	JE19426 posted... Yes I'm reading, try doing it yourself, and not just jumping in the middle of the conversation. That's hypocritical. You weren't at the beginning. --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:914410635] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes I'm reading, try doing it yourself, and not just jumping in the middle of the conversation.</quote> That's hypocritical. You weren't at the beginning.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dave_is_slick 12/19/18 6:41:29 PM #196:	JE19426 posted... Yes I'm reading, try doing it yourself, and not just jumping in the middle of the conversation. It's funny how mad people get when you point something out and then assume that you haven't been following along. --- The most relaxing version of Aquatic Ambiance I've ever heard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl61y1XM7sM <cite>dave_is_slick posted [p:914410668] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes I'm reading, try doing it yourself, and not just jumping in the middle of the conversation.</quote> It's funny how mad people get when you point something out and then assume that you haven't been following along.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dark_SilverX 12/19/18 6:43:33 PM #197:	NinjaWarrior455 posted... America!!!!! Land of the free. Utopia for our Lord Trump. --- I support Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. don't compare games to feces -- if you've an opinion worth mentioning, do so civilly <cite>Dark_SilverX posted [p:914410775] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>NinjaWarrior455 posted...</cite> <quote>America!!!!!</quote> Land of the free. Utopia for our Lord Trump.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 12/19/18 6:46:07 PM #198:	Webmaster4531 posted... That's hypocritical. You weren't at the beginning. I've read the full conversation. dave_is_slick posted... It's funny how mad people get when you point something out and then assume that you haven't been following along. I'm not mad, I'm just given you advice. It's quite clear you haven't followed the conversation, in fact right there in post 191, Webmaster says the "if" isn't there. Edit: I put "post 196" instead of "post 191". I don't know how I did that. I've fixed it now. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:914410891] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote>That's hypocritical. You weren't at the beginning. </quote> I've read the full conversation. <cite>dave_is_slick posted...</cite> <quote>It's funny how mad people get when you point something out and then assume that you haven't been following along. </quote> I'm not mad, I'm just given you advice. It's quite clear you haven't followed the conversation, in fact right there in post 191, Webmaster says the "if" isn't there. Edit: I put "post 196" instead of "post 191". I don't know how I did that. I've fixed it now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lil_Bit83 12/19/18 6:53:48 PM #199:	Tmaster148 posted... I mean. If cops don't have to protect people then what's the point in paying for them with our taxes. Seems like wasteful spending. This. Their job is to hold up the law and protect the populace. Any little kid could tell you that. I guess this judge missed the memo. --- I'm a chick <cite>Lil_Bit83 posted [p:914411306] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean. If cops don't have to protect people then what's the point in paying for them with our taxes. Seems like wasteful spending.</quote> This. Their job is to hold up the law and protect the populace. Any little kid could tell you that. I guess this judge missed the memo.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Crepes 12/19/18 6:55:31 PM #200:	To Protect and Serve* . . . . . Unless its a real scary situation and were too cowardly to act. --- Praxis Makes Perfect* The only intelligent tactical response to life's horror is to laugh defiantly at it. ~Soren Kierkegaard <cite>Crepes posted [p:914411386] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote>To Protect and Serve* . . . . . *Unless its a real scary situation and were too cowardly to act.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 12/19/18 6:56:48 PM #201:	Yeah I don't know why "Too protect and serve" is their thing, that's literally the thing they don't ever do. --- 7D ChessMaster of Dark Aether https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:914411447] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote>Yeah I don't know why "Too protect and serve" is their thing, that's literally the thing they don't ever do.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lil_Bit83 12/19/18 6:59:06 PM #202:	butthole666 posted... It make sense for a lone cop to not run in to an active shooter situation. It make them a shit cop, but its a human response. The problem here is making that legal precent. This Offworlder1 posted... neither the constitution or state law impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect induvidual persons from harm even when they know the harm will occur Is an absolutely terrifying and abhorrent thing to have on the books and this judge should be ashamed for his gross incompetence and irresponsible ruling This is true. I'm just saying that the judge thinking that the police force isn't there to protect the innocent in whatever ways they can, is a dumb statement. --- I'm a chick <cite>Lil_Bit83 posted [p:914411571] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote><cite>butthole666 posted...</cite> <quote>It make sense for a lone cop to not run in to an active shooter situation. It make them a shit cop, but its a human response. The problem here is making that legal precent. This <cite>Offworlder1 posted...</cite> <quote>neither the constitution or state law impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect induvidual persons from harm even when they know the harm will occur </quote> Is an absolutely terrifying and abhorrent thing to have on the books and this judge should be ashamed for his gross incompetence and irresponsible ruling</quote> This is true. I'm just saying that the judge thinking that the police force isn't there to protect the innocent in whatever ways they can, is a dumb statement.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
---Devin--- 12/20/18 1:13:05 AM #205:	I'm fucking done. So you are literally telling me, Cops do not even have to protect people? It's dumb as shit at this point. Citizens pay their salary and they don't have to do shit? It's all subjective? So they're here for, Give stupid ass traffic tickets for going 5-10 over the speed limit. You have a whole ass FUCKING STATE PATROL who do this shit. Get people for harmless drugs like weed Provoke and Harass people Ignore or take prolonged time to get to "crime in progress". Kill innocent people and get away with it Exactly what the fuck do they get paid to do at this point? I'm sick of this shit now. Ever since fucking Columbine you had this shit, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immediate_Action_Rapid_Deployment --- Slime Season <cite>---Devin--- posted [p:914428039] in Judge rule... [t:77316398]...</cite> <quote>I'm fucking done. So you are literally telling me, Cops do not even have to protect people? It's dumb as shit at this point. Citizens pay their salary and they don't have to do shit? It's all subjective? So they're here for, Give stupid ass traffic tickets for going 5-10 over the speed limit. You have a whole ass FUCKING STATE PATROL who do this shit. Get people for harmless drugs like weed Provoke and Harass people Ignore or take prolonged time to get to "crime in progress". Kill innocent people and get away with it Exactly what the fuck do they get paid to do at this point? I'm sick of this shit now. Ever since fucking Columbine you had this shit, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immediate_Action_Rapid_Deployment</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Current Events > Judge ruled officers had no duty to protect students in parkland shooting. (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Judge ruled officers had no duty to protect students in parkland shooting.