On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 12:37:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

I figured O.J. would get what was coming to him, sooner or
later, and I think the Missouri cop will, too, and so will your hero,
George Zimmerman.

===

In the end you will get what is coming to you also. It's guaranteed.

On 12/6/2014 1:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 12:37:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

I figured O.J. would get what was coming to him, sooner or
later, and I think the Missouri cop will, too, and so will your hero,
George Zimmerman.

===

In the end you will get what is coming to you also. It's guaranteed.


Probably not in a punitive way, but by medical conditions he's mentioned
elsewhere. Either way, he won't be missed.

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/6/14 12:09 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:44:26 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 12/5/14 12:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote:


These days, the cops would shoot you if you had one. They looked too
real.


The cops will shoot you, period.

No sweat, the unions will protect the cops.



Indeed, the police unions exist partially to ensure their members
receive fair due process and a good lawyer if they are accused of a
job-related criminal act.

I do appreciate that right-wing morons like you have problems with that
concept. Tough darts.

It seems left wing morons do too. I suppose you are really conflicted
here. The FOP is saying the New York cop is a boy scout, literally and
you think he is a murderer.


I'm not "conflicted" at all. I don't suffer from right-wing rigid
personality, and I don't expect the world to be *my way* or no way. I'm
glad cops accused of crimes have access to decent counsel at little or no
cost beyond their union dues. My personal feelings about these cops who
have been in the news lately does not lead me to a right-wing lynch mob mentality.


If I was a union cop and my dues went to pay for a cops defense when he
actually committed a crime, I would be ****ed if he did not have to
reimburse the union. Like the San Francisco cops just convicted of
stealing from suspects. Maybe the union should pay for the lawyers of
those with valid complaints against cops.

On 12/6/14 1:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 12:37:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

I figured O.J. would get what was coming to him, sooner or
later, and I think the Missouri cop will, too, and so will your hero,
George Zimmerman.

===

In the end you will get what is coming to you also. It's guaranteed.


As will you. Bet yours is a lot worse.

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 12:37:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

I figured O.J. would get what was coming to him, sooner or
later, and I think the Missouri cop will, too, and so will your hero,
George Zimmerman.

===

In the end you will get what is coming to you also. It's guaranteed.

"We all got it coming kid." - Will Munny "Unforgiven"

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 11:40 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:17:23 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 12/5/14 10:35 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:15:31 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Johnny perseverates on this sort of crap, hoping to wear you out
so you
will play his game. Really. He's a little like Greg, but not
nearly as
clever.

===

And you are a little like yourself, obnoxious as ever, and not clever
at all. I'd be interested in hearing your side of the discussion
about unions protecting bad cops, bad teachers, etc.


Sure, Wayne, as soon as you stop being an asshole here.

===

OK, I just stopped.

The ball is in your court.


Okay, I'll play...for the moment...until you revert back.

Labor unions exist to protect and improve the wages, hours, working
conditions, and medical coverage and retirement options of their
members. They also represent their members in grievances with employers.

If by "bad cops" et cetera, you are referring to union members accused
of serious crimes related to their jobs, then, yes, most unions will
support their members by providing and paying for the services of a
good-quality lawyer to mount a defense on the members' behalf. Doing
so ensures the member has the benefit of due process.

My "side" on this is that it is an important and proper benefit of
union membership.




So these individuals are not capable or willing to think for themselves
and resort to paying dues to a bunch of left-wing scumbags to defend
them when they are inept or lazy?

On 12/6/2014 11:14 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 12:37:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 12/6/14 10:58 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 07:42:55 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

I'm not "conflicted" at all. I don't suffer from right-wing rigid
personality, and I don't expect the world to be *my way* or no way. I'm
glad cops accused of crimes have access to decent counsel at little or
no cost beyond their union dues. My personal feelings about these cops
who have been in the news lately does not lead me to a right-wing lynch
mob mentality.

No, it is a left wing lynch mob.
You refuse to accept the actions of the justice system.


This is yet another in your famous string of attempts to argue your
point well beyond the onset of absurdity. You would have been a hoot in
college formal debate because you would have been disqualified or booed
off the podium.

I don't like the actions of grand juries that give cops a free ride when
they commit ultraviolence against unarmed civilians, but that doesn't
make me or others who feel as I do part of a lynch mob. I didn't like
the actions of the O.J. murder jury back in 1995, but I wasn't ready to
lynch anyone. I figured O.J. would get what was coming to him, sooner or
later, and I think the Missouri cop will, too, and so will your hero,
George Zimmerman.

You are like the mobs in the street who will accept nothing but an
immediate conviction and reject the verdict of a jury in the case of
Zimmerman and reject the grand jury in the cases of Wilson and
Pantaleo. You had made up your mind before there were any facts
established, simply based on media reports that are inaccurate.

As I have said many times, there are far better examples but they go
off on the wrong ones.

Why not protest the cop who shot the 12 year old with the air soft gun
or the cop who shot a guy for a seat belt violation.

You people always find a criminal or a thug to defend, then you want
to lynch the guy who shot them in self defense.

In the case of Eric Garner, there were at least 10 people who were
collectively responsible for his death (including Garner himself) and
only one was targeted, simply because he was the most visible.
If I was going to charge someone, it would be the EMTs. Garner was
alive when they got there and they did absolutely nothing to keep him
alive.



When exactly did Garner die?

On 12/6/2014 11:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/6/2014 11:14 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 12:37:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 12/6/14 10:58 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 07:42:55 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

I'm not "conflicted" at all. I don't suffer from right-wing rigid
personality, and I don't expect the world to be *my way* or no way.
I'm
glad cops accused of crimes have access to decent counsel at little or
no cost beyond their union dues. My personal feelings about these cops
who have been in the news lately does not lead me to a right-wing
lynch
mob mentality.

No, it is a left wing lynch mob.
You refuse to accept the actions of the justice system.


This is yet another in your famous string of attempts to argue your
point well beyond the onset of absurdity. You would have been a hoot in
college formal debate because you would have been disqualified or booed
off the podium.

I don't like the actions of grand juries that give cops a free ride when
they commit ultraviolence against unarmed civilians, but that doesn't
make me or others who feel as I do part of a lynch mob. I didn't like
the actions of the O.J. murder jury back in 1995, but I wasn't ready to
lynch anyone. I figured O.J. would get what was coming to him, sooner or
later, and I think the Missouri cop will, too, and so will your hero,
George Zimmerman.

You are like the mobs in the street who will accept nothing but an
immediate conviction and reject the verdict of a jury in the case of
Zimmerman and reject the grand jury in the cases of Wilson and
Pantaleo. You had made up your mind before there were any facts
established, simply based on media reports that are inaccurate.

As I have said many times, there are far better examples but they go
off on the wrong ones.

Why not protest the cop who shot the 12 year old with the air soft gun
or the cop who shot a guy for a seat belt violation.

You people always find a criminal or a thug to defend, then you want
to lynch the guy who shot them in self defense.

In the case of Eric Garner, there were at least 10 people who were
collectively responsible for his death (including Garner himself) and
only one was targeted, simply because he was the most visible.
If I was going to charge someone, it would be the EMTs. Garner was
alive when they got there and they did absolutely nothing to keep him
alive.



When exactly did Garner die?




According at least two sources, Garner did not die at the scene of the
confrontation. He suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to
the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.

The EMT's may have had no reason to suspect an impending heart attack.
He had a pulse and was breathing.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 01:04:32 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 23:33:34 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


According at least two sources, Garner did not die at the scene of the
confrontation. He suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to
the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.

The EMT's may have had no reason to suspect an impending heart attack.
He had a pulse and was breathing.

He had complained that he couldn't breathe and that is one of the
signs of a heart attack. The 2 IBM guys I know who had one both said
it felt like a car was sitting on their chest.
All 4 were suspended in July (plenty of cites)and I think 2 were later
fired if you can believe CNN.
If I am the grand jury, that puts enough reasonable doubt out there
not to sustain an indictment. Giving everyone else on the scene,
including the supervisor and the other cops who were sitting on Garner
immunity was troubling too.
There was no windpipe or neck injuries so this was NOT A CHOKING, no
matter what Brooke Baldwin and Erin Burnett call it.
I think this guy was a heart attack waiting to happen, he had one and
they ignored him to death. The city is certainly liable but it looks
more like incompetence than murder.

If what you say is true, which I don't doubt, then the praise bestowed
on the grand jury by the President of New York's police union was well
deserved.

Good on him, even if his main union follower here disagrees.
--

"When your argument has backed a liberal into a corner,
expect to be called a racist."

On 12/6/2014 11:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/6/2014 11:14 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 12:37:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 12/6/14 10:58 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 07:42:55 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

I'm not "conflicted" at all. I don't suffer from right-wing rigid
personality, and I don't expect the world to be *my way* or no way.
I'm
glad cops accused of crimes have access to decent counsel at little or
no cost beyond their union dues. My personal feelings about these cops
who have been in the news lately does not lead me to a right-wing
lynch
mob mentality.

No, it is a left wing lynch mob.
You refuse to accept the actions of the justice system.


This is yet another in your famous string of attempts to argue your
point well beyond the onset of absurdity. You would have been a hoot in
college formal debate because you would have been disqualified or booed
off the podium.

I don't like the actions of grand juries that give cops a free ride when
they commit ultraviolence against unarmed civilians, but that doesn't
make me or others who feel as I do part of a lynch mob. I didn't like
the actions of the O.J. murder jury back in 1995, but I wasn't ready to
lynch anyone. I figured O.J. would get what was coming to him, sooner or
later, and I think the Missouri cop will, too, and so will your hero,
George Zimmerman.

You are like the mobs in the street who will accept nothing but an
immediate conviction and reject the verdict of a jury in the case of
Zimmerman and reject the grand jury in the cases of Wilson and
Pantaleo. You had made up your mind before there were any facts
established, simply based on media reports that are inaccurate.

As I have said many times, there are far better examples but they go
off on the wrong ones.

Why not protest the cop who shot the 12 year old with the air soft gun
or the cop who shot a guy for a seat belt violation.

You people always find a criminal or a thug to defend, then you want
to lynch the guy who shot them in self defense.

In the case of Eric Garner, there were at least 10 people who were
collectively responsible for his death (including Garner himself) and
only one was targeted, simply because he was the most visible.
If I was going to charge someone, it would be the EMTs. Garner was
alive when they got there and they did absolutely nothing to keep him
alive.



When exactly did Garner die?


When his heart stopped beating.