2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: hvybarrels on January 28, 2014, 09:15:04 AM
-
http://khon2.com/2014/01/28/shots-fired-at-roosevelt-high-school/ (http://khon2.com/2014/01/28/shots-fired-at-roosevelt-high-school/)
So far it sounds like nobody died, and that's a good thing.
-
Just saw this on Fox. Changed it to CNN and sure enough them too. The media just eats this stuff up.
Anyone want to take a gander what Piers is going to talk about tonight? ::)
-
GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1990.
<< 18 USCA § 921 NOTE >>
(a) SHORT TITLE.--This section may be cited as the "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990".
(b) PROHIBITIONS AGAINST POSSESSION OR DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM IN A SCHOOL ZONE.--
<< 18 USCA § 922 >>
(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
"(q)(1)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
"(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the possession of a firearm--
"(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
"(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school
zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political
subdivision requires that, before an individual obtain such a license, the law enforcement
authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to
receive the license;
"(iii) which is--
"(I) not loaded; and
"(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack which is on a motor
(Publication page references are not available for this document.)
vehicle;
"(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
"(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school
zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
"(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
"(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the
purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
premises is authorized by school authorities.
"(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or
with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm at a
place that the person knows is a school zone.
"(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the discharge of a firearm--
"(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
"(ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is
participating in the program;
"(iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a
(Publication page references are not available for this document.)
school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; or
"(iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.
"(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local
government from enacting a statute establishing gun-free school zones as provided in this
subsection.".
<< 18 USCA § 921 >>
(2) DEFINITIONS.--Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new paragraphs:
"(25) The term 'school zone' means--
"(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or
"(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.
"(26) The term 'school' means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as
determined under State law.
"(27) The term 'motor vehicle' has the meaning given such term in section 10102 of title 49,
United States Code.".
<< 18 USCA § 924 >>
(3) PENALTY.--Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end thereof the following
new paragraph:
"(4) Whoever violates section 922(q) shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not
more than 5 years, or both. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of imprisonment
imposed under this paragraph shall not run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment
imposed under any other provision of law. Except for the authorization of a term of imprisonment
of not more than 5 years made in this paragraph, for the purpose of any other law a violation of
section 922(q) shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor.".
<< 18 USCA §§ 921 NOTE, 922 nt, 924 nt >>
(4) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to conduct engaged in
after the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
<< 18 USCA § 922 NOTE >>
(5) GUN-FREE ZONE SIGNS.--Federal, State, and local authorities are encouraged to cause signs
to be posted around school zones giving warning of prohibition of the possession of firearms in a
school zone.
-
Annnnnnnnd....kiss it all goodbye folks.
Welcome to new California :thumbsup:
-
Was the suspect on prescription drugs like the lion's share of the others?
-
Was the suspect on prescription drugs like the lion's share of the others?
i heard greg hammer on KRTR talking about an escaped prisoner and a shooting
didn't hear what location he was talking about, but it was likely this one
he's a former cop, so if they have a scanner, he would know all the codes and other inside info
-
News now reporting officer shot 17 year old after being stabbed. Kid was being picked up for being truant/ runnkngy away from campus when incident occured
-
apparently it wasn't a shooter, some kid lunged at a police officer with a knife on campus and the officer shot him in the wrist. thank god.
-
Latest I heard is that it was a runaway that the cops were trying to get. He in turned stabbed the police officer, then he was subsequently shot by police in the wrist by a 45ACP. No students were injured supposibly.
-
Sorry about my geriatric paranoia, but I'm becoming more and more suspicious that some of these incidents are set-up jobs. It doesn't take much to deliberately plant "suggestions" in a weak-minded individual's head to go out and shoot up gun-free zones in order to advance the anti-gun agenda.
Not saying this is the case here, but my mind is sure trending that way in looking at some of the recent cases.
I was also very disappointed in the comments to the cited article.
-
seems like we should ban cops from having guns. They seem to be doing all the shooting in Hawaii...
-
Now that the media finds out this is a case of self protection, and does not fit the agenda, how fast can they get it off air?
-
Latest I heard is that it was a runaway that the cops were trying to get. He in turned stabbed the police officer, then he was subsequently shot by police in the wrist by a 45ACP. No students were injured supposibly.
No students were injured? what about the 17 year old kid which got shot? is he not a student?
-
Now that the media finds out this is a case of self protection, and does not fit the agenda, how fast can they get it off air?
Not fast enough ::) They definately left the original report open to interpretation prior to having the facts.
sliver, reportably it was a runaway. I'm just regurgitating what was reported that NO students were injured. If the news is wrong, then I am wrong.
-
My 2 cents worth...
2 or more cops could not subdue a 17 yr old.
Granted he had a knife but don't they have tasers ? ???
Was this excessive use of force ?
As HPD fired several shots, and only one found a piece of flesh, was he aiming to disarm or just a poor marksman that threw a couple rounds at the kid and winged'em ?
Aiming to disarm says no immediate deadly threat., poor marksman makes me ask where did the other rounds end up inside the school ? ::)
Finally, there goes Hawaii's present knife carry laws ! :(
-
My .02...
Some 17yo aren't that small
A knife is a deadly weapon.
I doubt it was a shoot to wound. Shoot to stop. Just ended up wounding.
-
We also don't know the distance of the altercation. Maybe there was a struggle. Maybe the officer drew his pistol and the attacker tried to grab the gun. Or maybe the attacker was going for his pistol so he had to draw it. A lot of unknowns at this point.
-
Remember that a knife within 21 feet is potentially fatal. Most LEO probably got that training.
http://youtu.be/7fPNhWH_Thk
-
Remember that a knife within 21 feet is potentially fatal. Most LEO probably got that training.
http://youtu.be/7fPNhWH_Thk (http://youtu.be/7fPNhWH_Thk)
We were trained 30 ft; even had a demonstration to prove it was not only possible, but highly likely for someone who receives only limited training with their sidearm.
And for people saying, 'why didn't he just use a taser?' : if someone stabbed or attempted to your friend or partner, I can guarantee that you wouldn't tase him. Anyone with LEO training knows that if an attacker is already making an aggressive attempt to harm you or someone else, a higher escalation of force is needed; the taser is reserved for non-compliance without incident of attempted physical assault.
On a side note, it has already been proven that HPD has a tendency to be trigger happy over the past few years. Still, I would have done the same in his shoes.
-
Play stupid games, get stupid prizes. The kid is lucky he was only shot in the wrist.
-
JL808, thanks for showing this video. Most LEO handles situations within 5 feet. This is a wake up call at least for me. If they were in a room with desks and other obstructions, well that's very close. Fight or Flight. Good job LEO.
-
Report on ch2 was officer was stabbed in the vest, so perp had intent to do grievous harm. Justified shoot IMHO.
-
We were trained 30 ft; even had a demonstration to prove it was not only possible, but highly likely for someone who receives only limited training with their sidearm.
And for people saying, 'why didn't he just use a taser?' : if someone stabbed or attempted to your friend or partner, I can guarantee that you wouldn't tase him. Anyone with LEO training knows that if an attacker is already making an aggressive attempt to harm you or someone else, a higher escalation of force is needed; the taser is reserved for non-compliance without incident of attempted physical assault.
On a side note, it has already been proven that HPD has a tendency to be trigger happy over the past few years. Still, I would have done the same in his shoes.
So Q, my question may save myself from being tazed. Non-compliance could get a person tazed?! That is of course without incident of attemted physical assault.
Non compliance could be not moving quick enough when told to do so by LE.
Maybe even questioning an order. >:D
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
-
So Q, my question may save myself from being tazed. Non-compliance could get a person tazed?! That is of course without incident of attemted physical assault.
Non compliance could be not moving quick enough when told to do so by LE.
Maybe even questioning an order. >:D
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
If this happens make sure your wearing clean underwear. ..
-
So Q, my question may save myself from being tazed. Non-compliance could get a person tazed?! That is of course without incident of attemted physical assault.
Non compliance could be not moving quick enough when told to do so by LE.
Maybe even questioning an order. >:D
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
The answer to your question is: YES.
On the escalation of force tables, the tazer is actually lesser than OC spray. An officer just needs to justify in his report that you were somehow being non-compliant, which resulted in obstruction of his law enforcement duties and therefore 'justifies' his use of force with the taser.
Does it make it right? No; and if taken to court and proven that the escalation of force wasn't necessary, then it could be his ass, although most of the cases against HPD are dropped.
We all know many of the cops in HPD have ego problems that make them feel like they are invincible and can do whatever the hell they feel like, but as long as they can word their reports the right way, they can justify anything.
-
Waiting for more facts ..... but it sounds like the police did the shootings(shot the 17 yr old at the wrist).....yet all the media so far makes it like some student or somebody is shooting up the school.
-
Sorry if I "trolled" here. >:D
Just kinda seems that police all over the place sure are shooting alot of people. :wtf:
Will be nice to hear the whole story. :rofl: :rofl:
-
Sorry if I "trolled" here. >:D
Just kinda seems that police all over the place sure are shooting alot of people. :wtf:
Will be nice to hear the whole story. :rofl: :rofl:
Agreed.
There have already been several in the past 12 months in which HPD was involved.
-
Sorry if I "trolled" here. >:D
Just kinda seems that police all over the place sure are shooting alot of people. :wtf:
Will be nice to hear the whole story. :rofl: :rofl:
That, I wouldn't consider trolling. A different opinion on a situation makes for a informative conversation.
-
the teen cut one officer with a knife and punched two others.
Sounds drug induced, emotionally unstable or "Daaaamn dat's one big boy with an attitude".
Ether way, best they got him out of the school
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/28/suspect-in-custody-after-shots-fired-at-hawaii-high-school-police-say/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/28/suspect-in-custody-after-shots-fired-at-hawaii-high-school-police-say/)
-
Sorry if I "trolled" here. >:D
Just kinda seems that police all over the place sure are shooting alot of people. :wtf:
Will be nice to hear the whole story. :rofl: :rofl:
A reason why police may seem to be shooting more is that it could be indicative of an ill society, that has no regard for law or being civil. In this case, the teen runaway should not have stabbed an LEO. Simple. There is a consequence. Additionally, this can also be a case for CCW, because a regular citizen would not respond well to a knife attack while dialing 911.
-
LA times
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-hawaii-school-shooting-knife-20140128,0,7928675.story#axzz2rjsxBGT2 (http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-hawaii-school-shooting-knife-20140128,0,7928675.story#axzz2rjsxBGT2)
-
The answer to your question is: YES.
On the escalation of force tables, the tazer is actually lesser than OC spray. An officer just needs to justify in his report that you were somehow being non-compliant, which resulted in obstruction of his law enforcement duties and therefore 'justifies' his use of force with the taser.
Does it make it right? No; and if taken to court and proven that the escalation of force wasn't necessary, then it could be his ass, although most of the cases against HPD are dropped.
We all know many of the cops in HPD have ego problems that make them feel like they are invincible and can do whatever the hell they feel like, but as long as they can word their reports the right way, they can justify anything.
Like Bigkahuna said I better be wearing clean bebadees.
Careful out there, you may find yourself in a shocking situation. C:-)
-
Play stupid games, get stupid prizes. The kid is lucky he was only shot in the wrist.
:shake:
Oh I defiantly agree :thumbsup:. You try to stab a cop and you are gonna get shot! That is just common sense. That kid is lucky he didn't get shot more then once! I'm actually surprised he didn't get shot more then once! I wonder if he was trying to do a death/suicide by cop type of thing, especially if there was more then one cop at the scene. Then again, people/kids in Hawaii aren't the smartest in the world...
-
A reason why police may seem to be shooting more is that it could be indicative of an ill society, that has no regard for law or being civil. In this case, the teen runaway should not have stabbed an LEO. Simple. There is a consequence. Additionally, this can also be a case for CCW, because a regular citizen would not respond well to a knife attack while dialing 911.
Nailed it Ren!! Yes there are bad cops and we just have to trust the system will find them and take care of them, but I am certain there are far more that are good and mean well all the time. These guys deal with the worst of society everyday, as far as to the possibility of not coming home from work…ever. You pull a knife on a cop and use it you deserve to be shot. You disobey an order of compliance from an officer you probably are up to no good anyway. If your not up to no good you settle with the PD and be done.
By the way I am no cop, I do however believe it the standards and norms of a grounded stable society and if we need police that enforce rules and laws to maintain that I say do it.
-
Not fast enough ::) They definately left the original report open to interpretation prior to having the facts.
sliver, reportably it was a runaway. I'm just regurgitating what was reported that NO students were injured. If the news is wrong, then I am wrong.
New information: The 17 yr old was NOT a student. He is a runaway who showed up at the school to register. When the school told him he could not enroll, he became "disorderly."
-
New information: The 17 yr old was NOT a student. He is a runaway who showed up at the school to register. When the school told him he could not enroll, he became "disorderly."
At least he was trying to get edumacated. :crazy:
-
At least he was trying to get edumacated. :crazy:
He was a good kid! Just trying to turn his life around, stop this runaway nonsense and get educated. ;)
-
He was a good kid! Just trying to turn his life around, stop this runaway nonsense and get educated. ;)
Just another child victim of handgun violence.
Brady bunch statistics considers all gunshot victims 20 years old and under as children.
-
You disobey an order of compliance from an officer you probably are up to no good anyway. If your not up to no good you settle with the PD and be done.
By the way I am no cop, I do however believe it the standards and norms of a grounded stable society and if we need police that enforce rules and laws to maintain that I say do it.
Sorry, I disagree. Is the legal open carrier up to "no good" when an officer stops him solely for open carrying (which would be illegal for the officer to do...)? Is his (or her) refusal to provide ID (which is not required in most states) "...disobey[ing] an order of compliance..." and ipso facto justify escalation to deadly force?
-
Q:
I think the only reason taser is before OC is because you don't generally accidently taze other officers lol. It's funny when you hear "OC OC" you can immediately see the faces of other officers and people go from "get him" to "FML" lol.
-
Q:
I think the only reason taser is before OC is because you don't generally accidently taze other officers lol. It's funny when you hear "OC OC" you can immediately see the faces of other officers and people go from "get him" to "FML" lol.
I know...I was a 'cop' before, and had to requalify every year for OC and Taser. :thumbsup:
-
The answer to your question is: YES.
On the escalation of force tables, the tazer is actually lesser than OC spray. An officer just needs to justify in his report that you were somehow being non-compliant, which resulted in obstruction of his law enforcement duties and therefore 'justifies' his use of force with the taser.
Does it make it right? No; and if taken to court and proven that the escalation of force wasn't necessary, then it could be his ass, although most of the cases against HPD are dropped.
We all know many of the cops in HPD have ego problems that make them feel like they are invincible and can do whatever the hell they feel like, but as long as they can word their reports the right way, they can justify anything.
Your a little incorrect with you statement about OC vs. Taser deployments on the use of force continuum. I read through some of your post and you said that you used to be a "cop" I don't know you or when you did your public service in Hawaii but its the opposite now.
-
Your a little incorrect with you statement about OC vs. Taser deployments on the use of force continuum. I read through some of your post and you said that you used to be a "cop" I don't know you or when you did your public service in Hawaii but its the opposite now.
While OC is meant to subdue individuals with minimal force, it has the potential to not only effect large numbers of people, but also bring forth possible unforeseen physical reactions and/or death in certain individuals who are sensitive to the chemical constitution of OC; hence the reason it is technically a chemical weapon. This is why normally its unarmed combat, ASP/Club, taser, attack dog, OC, presentation of deadly force, and deadly force, in that exact order.
Not sure which EOF policy your department has in place, but that's what we followed.
-
Sorry, I disagree. Is the legal open carrier up to "no good" when an officer stops him solely for open carrying (which would be illegal for the officer to do...)? Is his (or her) refusal to provide ID (which is not required in most states) "...disobey[ing] an order of compliance..." and ipso facto justify escalation to deadly force?
Respectfully, as I stated there are good cops and bad cops thus good decisions (contacts) and bad by PD. Why is it so hard to allow a contact whether right or wrong to be cleared up clearly by PD and then be on your way. I think the problem is mainly inflated egos. I understand the fine line of details we are talking about here, but, if you are doing no wrong it will be cleared up and be done with. If you are up to doing wrong I am glad they made contact with you and clear up the mess as well. Respectfully.
The open carry discussion does not even apply here so I am confused of the point trying to be made? If the law says he must show ID then he must…the ego thing again…if not, well then of course he should not have to show it to the PD.
-
We send 18 year olds off to war, so a 17 year old is more than capable of being a highly lethal threat especially when armed with a knife. Try to stab someone and who ever says that they would simply subdue them physically or use a Taser, is taking a huge and unwise gamble with their own life and perhaps that of another. Yes in certain instances up close a highly trained and skilled fighter may be better off closing distance quickly and attempting to control the limb with the knife, but lets face it, that takes a years of practice and even knife fighters or martial artists, will say that you are going to get cut in a knife fight. We all hear about a 21 foot rule and action vs. reaction, but a good way to look at the 21 foot rule is that if you are 21 feet away or less the rule is that you ARE going to get stabbed or cut. Even much further out, if you cannot retreat or place an object between you and the attacker, or mount your own defense and employ it effectively, you still stand a huge chance of serious bodily injury or death.
Relying on a Taser in an up close dynamic situation such as encountering a surprise knife attack at close range is asking to incur serious bodily injury or possible death. Most people cannot draw and fire their pistol reliably in this situation before getting hit and obviously one Officer got cut or hit in the vest from the blade. The pistol is in a position in the holster that is hopefully ingrained in the subconscious mind to perform the draw and it is hard enough to get it out before getting cut or stabbed. Now imagine trying to draw the Taser from a different location that is in an offside position often on the thigh. Taser in this instance is not the correct choice. It is a lethal force encounter and the more correct option outside of physical control, which it sounds like was attempted, is to go to the pistol in an attempt to stop the threat, not the Taser.
There is perhaps more about this 17 year old that the public will not know about as he is a juvenile and will not be made public, such as arrest records, any type of evaluations, etc... and I will just leave it at that.
As mentioned by mf-tom the HPD does not have the old use of force "ladder continuum" which is a bit dated within LE in general, but utilizes a more modern version and the Taser is placed at a higher level of use of force vs OC spray. While the Taser could clearly be an option if you look at use of force as a whole and I will not discount any situation, but clearly in a situation described in the story and it seems pretty clear that the Taser is not the correct option.
-
Here I go again...
We had 3 LEO on scene apparently within the 7 yd "buffer zone", 2 of which made (or received) physical contact before the 17 yr old pulls a blade. ???
-
Here I go again...
We had 3 LEO on scene apparently within the 7 yd "buffer zone", 2 of which made (or received) physical contact before the 17 yr old pulls a blade. ???
reports are saying he was in the counselor's office
so they had to be in the same room, and were probably limited to close contact due to the size of the room
plus, there is a great chance of "friendly fire" at such distances
bad situation all around
neighbors said there was a disturbance at his house earlier that morning
said he was running up and down the street screaming
sounds like drugs, manic, or psychotic
-
They keep saying "shooting" and it gives the impression that a student went on a shooting rampage. They need to chang the title to "Police fire shots at knife weilding sudent"
The school called the police, but the media keeps printing it as a fricking shooting when its the police that fired the only shots. WTF!! :grrr:
-
Respectfully, as I stated there are good cops and bad cops thus good decisions (contacts) and bad by PD. Why is it so hard to allow a contact whether right or wrong to be cleared up clearly by PD and then be on your way. I think the problem is mainly inflated egos. I understand the fine line of details we are talking about here, but, if you are doing no wrong it will be cleared up and be done with. If you are up to doing wrong I am glad they made contact with you and clear up the mess as well. Respectfully.
The open carry discussion does not even apply here so I am confused of the point trying to be made? If the law says he must show ID then he must…the ego thing again…if not, well then of course he should not have to show it to the PD.
Why should "we" have to give up rights, rights that all LE should know well? Should we all be subject to random stops and searches? And you are correct, that the problem is, often, inflated egos, mainly on the side of LE.
It is difficult for some to acquiesce to illegal detentions and requests for ID because many believe that the current erosion of our rights stem from the cumulative effect of these small, improper, but albeit seemingly innocent and innocuous encroachments. Your statement, "if you are doing no wrong it will be cleared up..." is way to close to the classic "if you're innocent you have nothing to hide" statement used so frequently to try and search without a warrant.
The open carry analogy does indeed apply and is quite demonstrative in the issue being discussed. If open carry is legal, then you cannot be stopped and detained merely for open carrying. Yet, it happens all the time. LE often try to bully or intimidate the open carrier to provide ID or to remain despite no legal authority to do so. And while I am not a big fan of the "let's open carry with a video camera just to goad the police into making contact" you have to admit that the vast majority of the time the police response is improper in terms of forcing a non-consensual encounter and illegally requesting ID for nothing more than legal behavior. Prior attempts to appease LE in these types of situations by providing ID and not questioning the legal authority to make such stops has, IMHO (and many others...) contributed to the now all too familiar scenario, well documented on numerous You Tube videos, of LE illegally detaining open carriers. So, should legal open carriers, who are stopped illegally, comply with illegal requests, some made under threat of arrest or force, without attempting to assert their rights? And if they don't "comply" should that fact alone justify LE escalating the level of force?
The other analogy is that of filming LE. While it is completely legal in every state to film LE as long as you do not actively interfere, there are many, many instances of LE telling people to stop filming, sometimes under threat of arrest. Should refusing to stop, hence failing to comply with the officers illegal demands, be viewed as "dong something wrong" as you inferred earlier?
-
Here I go again...
We had 3 LEO on scene apparently within the 7 yd "buffer zone", 2 of which made (or received) physical contact before the 17 yr old pulls a blade. ???
Let's not forget that this 17 year old, schizophrenic, NOS, runaway teen was in a school of which he was not a student of. The LEOs there not only had to protect themselves from a who-knows-how-big-of-a-kitchen knife but other staff and students of Roosevelt HS. Reading comments about how the HPD could have handled the situation with a Taser etc. is not realistic nor is it fair to assess the situation from media reports. The officers were at a disadvantage when this mentally unstable teenager pulled out a knife and manage to cut one of the officers. The general public's sentiment is that they could have disarmed this teen without use of deadly force...yeah sure, when Jet Li's stunt double comes in after the movie director orders a time out and cues the stunt man.
Fortunately, this unstable teen was stopped at the school's admin area. He could have easily gone on a stabbing rampage on campus.
Here's an experiment: Lock yourself in a small room with a very pissed off feral cat or mongoose. Try and catch it without getting scratched, cut or bit.
-
Why should "we" have to give up rights, rights that all LE should know well? Should we all be subject to random stops and searches? And you are correct, that the problem is, often, inflated egos, mainly on the side of LE.
It is difficult for some to acquiesce to illegal detentions and requests for ID because many believe that the current erosion of our rights stem from the cumulative effect of these small, improper, but albeit seemingly innocent and innocuous encroachments. Your statement, "if you are doing no wrong it will be cleared up..." is way to close to the classic "if you're innocent you have nothing to hide" statement used so frequently to try and search without a warrant.
The open carry analogy does indeed apply and is quite demonstrative in the issue being discussed. If open carry is legal, then you cannot be stopped and detained merely for open carrying. Yet, it happens all the time. LE often try to bully or intimidate the open carrier to provide ID or to remain despite no legal authority to do so. And while I am not a big fan of the "let's open carry with a video camera just to goad the police into making contact" you have to admit that the vast majority of the time the police response is improper in terms of forcing a non-consensual encounter and illegally requesting ID for nothing more than legal behavior. Prior attempts to appease LE in these types of situations by providing ID and not questioning the legal authority to make such stops has, IMHO (and many others...) contributed to the now all too familiar scenario, well documented on numerous You Tube videos, of LE illegally detaining open carriers. So, should legal open carriers, who are stopped illegally, comply with illegal requests, some made under threat of arrest or force, without attempting to assert their rights? And if they don't "comply" should that fact alone justify LE escalating the level of force?
The other analogy is that of filming LE. While it is completely legal in every state to film LE as long as you do not actively interfere, there are many, many instances of LE telling people to stop filming, sometimes under threat of arrest. Should refusing to stop, hence failing to comply with the officers illegal demands, be viewed as "dong something wrong" as you inferred earlier?
Look, you seem to have taken great interest in my comments for some reason. I am simply saying that if you are contacted just clear the damn thing up and your done OK! Your apparent disdain for LE has clouded your reasonable mind.
Now if open carry were to be legal here then hey I am game. In other states where it is OK I am game. As AGAIN I stated there are good and bad cops with good and bad outcomes when contacts with them happen. Don't let a dislike for LE get in the way of a reasonable statement.
-
.....
Here's an experiment: Lock yourself in a small room with a very pissed off feral cat or mongoose. Try and catch it without getting scratched, cut or bit.
Exactly. This feral cat / mongoose analogy is stupidly simple for anyone to understand. Except now your wresting a very large cat with a very large claw, mouth, feet, hands. If no one has ever had the opportunity to fight with a crazy person or a drug addict, or worse a crazy drug addict, it can be an interesting experience. Pupule strength is no joke.
Thanks I am going to borrowing this one.
-
Look, you seem to have taken great interest in my comments for some reason. I am simply saying that if you are contacted just clear the damn thing up and your done OK! Your apparent disdain for LE has clouded your reasonable mind.
Now if open carry were to be legal here then hey I am game. In other states where it is OK I am game. As AGAIN I stated there are good and bad cops with good and bad outcomes when contacts with them happen. Don't let a dislike for LE get in the way of a reasonable statement.
No, you look...first, I have no "disdain" for LE. My brother was a cop, I have many friends who are cops, and I respect the work they do. That being said, I don't have a problem pointing out problems, be it with cops or hardheaded Second Amendment supporters who don't seem to appreciate how ALL of our rights are important and deserve to be defended.
I took interest in your comment because it implied to me that you were all for giving up your rights, and seemed to suggest that others do so as well so that you could "clear up" any issue you may have in the context of an improper or illegal police detainment. I simply pointed out that some, myself included, would rather stand up for our rights, in a manner that would be most conducive to changing a longstanding and incremental encroachment of not only our Second Amendment rights, but also our First, Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights. You seem intent on abdicating your rights in an effort to appease an officer conducting an illegal detainment so as to end that encounter as quickly as possible.
Additionally, you seem to have the attitude that if you question the stop, or assert your rights, you must be doing something wrong, much like the oft used "if you ain't hiding anything you won't mind if we search..." mindset. That is a mindset that leads to blind obedience despite clear Constitutional affronts. And that, is what I was questioning.
Listen, I'm not a cop basher and I don't mean to call you out. I will question your intent if you post something I think needs clarification or appears to dismiss standing up for your rights, all of them and not just your Second Amendment ones.....maybe you shouldn't let your dislike or disdain for a thinking and reasonable citizenry cloud your mind or get in the way of a reasonable discussion on your statements and positions on matters.
Aloha
-
No, you look...first, I have no "disdain" for LE. My brother was a cop, I have many friends who are cops, and I respect the work they do. That being said, I don't have a problem pointing out problems, be it with cops or hardheaded Second Amendment supporters who don't seem to appreciate how ALL of our rights are important and deserve to be defended.
I took interest in your comment because it implied to me that you were all for giving up your rights, and seemed to suggest that others do so as well so that you could "clear up" any issue you may have in the context of an improper or illegal police detainment. I simply pointed out that some, myself included, would rather stand up for our rights, in a manner that would be most conducive to changing a longstanding and incremental encroachment of not only our Second Amendment rights, but also our First, Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights. You seem intent on abdicating your rights in an effort to appease an officer conducting an illegal detainment so as to end that encounter as quickly as possible.
Additionally, you seem to have the attitude that if you question the stop, or assert your rights, you must be doing something wrong, much like the oft used "if you ain't hiding anything you won't mind if we search..." mindset. That is a mindset that leads to blind obedience despite clear Constitutional affronts. And that, is what I was questioning.
Listen, I'm not a cop basher and I don't mean to call you out. I will question your intent if you post something I think needs clarification or appears to dismiss standing up for your rights, all of them and not just your Second Amendment ones.....maybe you shouldn't let your dislike or disdain for a thinking and reasonable citizenry cloud your mind or get in the way of a reasonable discussion on your statements and positions on matters.
Aloha
I agree with this mostly.
I think, IMHO, what this comes down to is the fine line between RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES. Americans are protected from unlawful searches and seizure. We also have a responsibility to help law enforcement if possible to keep everyone safe. Cooperating with an investigation, even something as innocent looking as providing ID, needs to be closely examined. If that cooperation does nothing toward assuring public safety or catching a criminal, then you have no responsibility to provide ID with a few exceptions like operating a motor vehicle, consuming alcohol, etc.
In today's digital age, information is power. Providing the police more information simply empowers them to POTENTIALLY cause you problems. So, compliance is bad ... cooperation is good IF you don't cooperate yourself into incriminating yourself.
Everyone should learn to say, "No" once in a while, and saying that to law enforcement is included. One day, you'll wish you had kept your mouth shut while awaiting trial for something you didn't realize was illegal or that you were even doing wrong. Don't do the COPs job for them. The only reason they get upset when you refuse to provide ID is (1) they don't like non-compliance, and (2) they will have holes in the report they have to file later, and that looks bad to their bosses!
-
No, you look...first, I have no "disdain" for LE. My brother was a cop, I have many friends who are cops, and I respect the work they do. That being said, I don't have a problem pointing out problems, be it with cops or hardheaded Second Amendment supporters who don't seem to appreciate how ALL of our rights are important and deserve to be defended.
I took interest in your comment because it implied to me that you were all for giving up your rights, and seemed to suggest that others do so as well so that you could "clear up" any issue you may have in the context of an improper or illegal police detainment. I simply pointed out that some, myself included, would rather stand up for our rights, in a manner that would be most conducive to changing a longstanding and incremental encroachment of not only our Second Amendment rights, but also our First, Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights. You seem intent on abdicating your rights in an effort to appease an officer conducting an illegal detainment so as to end that encounter as quickly as possible.
Additionally, you seem to have the attitude that if you question the stop, or assert your rights, you must be doing something wrong, much like the oft used "if you ain't hiding anything you won't mind if we search..." mindset. That is a mindset that leads to blind obedience despite clear Constitutional affronts. And that, is what I was questioning.
Listen, I'm not a cop basher and I don't mean to call you out. I will question your intent if you post something I think needs clarification or appears to dismiss standing up for your rights, all of them and not just your Second Amendment ones.....maybe you shouldn't let your dislike or disdain for a thinking and reasonable citizenry cloud your mind or get in the way of a reasonable discussion on your statements and positions on matters.
Aloha
And I the same for clarification. I am done with you and your blahblahblah. Thank you and respectfully.
-
And I the same for clarification. I am done with you and your blahblahblah. Thank you and respectfully.
You know as I read more of your comments you purport things that are not even nearly close to what I am trying to say. Why you would come up with this off the wall views for my statements baffles me.
You can try and make me into something I am not all you want to inflate your ego or your position or whatever it is you seem to be lacking, go right ahead; have at and have fun if it makes your life better.
-
You know as I read more of your comments you purport things that are not even nearly close to what I am trying to say. Why you would come up with this off the wall views for my statements baffles me.
You can try and make me into something I am not all you want to inflate your ego or your position or whatever it is you seem to be lacking, go right ahead; have at and have fun if it makes your life better.
I've got little problems with reading comprehension; I read your comments in the same light as HiCarry. That said, if you didn't mean it that way, you might exercise more care with what you type!
-
Going back to the topic at hand...
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/24596327/roosevelt-suspect-to-leave-hospital (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/24596327/roosevelt-suspect-to-leave-hospital)
We will be paying for this teen's treatment. Infuriating. Parent's should exercise responsibility. Mom has no right to complain that she can't see her son - she failed so now the state has to take care of her problem. She needs no attorney she needs to be held accountable, so that her child doesn't endanger others. The bigger topic at hand is a parent's supervision over her son; it is akin to firearms owners having accountability over their guns. The situation could have developed into something worse hadn't LE intervened.
-
Going back to the topic at hand...
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/24596327/roosevelt-suspect-to-leave-hospital (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/24596327/roosevelt-suspect-to-leave-hospital)
We will be paying for this teen's treatment. Infuriating. Parent's should exercise responsibility. Mom has no right to complain that she can't see her son - she failed so now the state has to take care of her problem. She needs no attorney she needs to be held accountable, so that her child doesn't endanger others. The bigger topic at hand is a parent's supervision over her son; it is akin to firearms owners having accountability over their guns. The situation could have developed into something worse hadn't LE intervened.
Too true, this kid's history says it all.
-
Nailed it Ren!! Yes there are bad cops and we just have to trust the system will find them and take care of them, but I am certain there are far more that are good and mean well all the time. These guys deal with the worst of society everyday, as far as to the possibility of not coming home from work…ever. You pull a knife on a cop and use it you deserve to be shot. You disobey an order of compliance from an officer you probably are up to no good anyway. If your not up to no good you settle with the PD and be done.
By the way I am no cop, I do however believe it the standards and norms of a grounded stable society and if we need police that enforce rules and laws to maintain that I say do it.
This what I stated that started this whole ridiculous twisted bending by HiCarry. Really come on read it again and again and again and tell me it is related in anyway to what he purports it to mean.
Either you people are so radicalized, militant and. anti LE or just plain looking for a fight I just do not know. Never did I ever make a claim of us giving up our rights to anyone or anything or any whatever. Video of LE…WTF! How did anything I said connect to such a far off topic. Jeeeeez. Is this a radicalized anti government anti LE forum? I may have had a different understanding when I first started hanging out around here. Try as you will to find an enemy, I know my positions and politics and I will stand by them, even when some will try and fabricate a controversy out of nothing at all.
-
A reason why police may seem to be shooting more is that it could be indicative of an ill society, that has no regard for law or being civil. In this case, the teen runaway should not have stabbed an LEO. Simple. There is a consequence. Additionally, this can also be a case for CCW, because a regular citizen would not respond well to a knife attack while dialing 911.
Just to help you read Ren's post this was what I was +'ing to. OK. I can't believe I need to go this far about this freakin' nuts!
-
Nailed it Ren!! Yes there are bad cops and we just have to trust the system will find them and take care of them, but I am certain there are far more that are good and mean well all the time. These guys deal with the worst of society everyday, as far as to the possibility of not coming home from work…ever. You pull a knife on a cop and use it you deserve to be shot. You disobey an order of compliance from an officer you probably are up to no good anyway. If your not up to no good you settle with the PD and be done.
By the way I am no cop, I do however believe it the standards and norms of a grounded stable society and if we need police that enforce rules and laws to maintain that I say do it.
"You disobey an order of compliance from an officer you probably are up to no good anyway." This is the reason for all the strife.
If you violently disobey is one thing. Respectfully disobeying because you are within your rights is another topic altogether. It is just the way it sounds, it is lumped all together in one statement, which many people will not agree with. Was MLK up to no good? Gandhi?
-
"You disobey an order of compliance from an officer you probably are up to no good anyway."
In the context of this thread When he says compliance I think he means "Drop the knife!!!"
Of course I could be wrong....
-
"You disobey an order of compliance from an officer you probably are up to no good anyway." This is the reason for all the strife.
If you violently disobey is one thing. Respectfully disobeying because you are within your rights is another topic altogether. It is just the way it sounds, it is lumped all together in one statement, which many people will not agree with. Was MLK up to no good? Gandhi?
Come on man, I was speaking in direct relation to the individuals decision to act upon the HPD at Rosevelt High School! Nothing else, absolutely nothing else. Read the post again!! You all seem to want to turn my comment into an all encompassing statement of civil rights and it was in not even formulated in that way; no way at all. I am truly shocked at the collective narrow minded mis-understanding of my agreement with Ren's statement. MLK, Gandhi, video of LE, open carry? How does all of that get tagged with my simple agreement with what Ren had stated? WTF you guys are looney. Take the context of my text for what it is and not some imagined civil rights infringement justification. This is solely about the Rosevelt High School incident and nothing else; that's it.
So to spell it out for you, cause apparently you cannot determine it yourself, the contact with LE that I am speaking of would be one brought on due to some sort of criminal act or intent of a crime by a particular individual(s). GET IT???!!! Your freaking kidding me if your really think I would ever think it was OK to have LE just willy nilly stop an individual. There seems to be a great disconnect to the understanding that I never said anything about random unwarranted contacts with PD as related to the decision by the young man that chose to bring a PD contact on himself at Rosevelt High School.
-
"You disobey an order of compliance from an officer you probably are up to no good anyway."
In the context of this thread When he says compliance I think he means "Drop the knife!!!"
Of course I could be wrong....
Finally a sensible understanding
-
You frickin' public school guys ! ( I'm actually public school too. Go Surfriders. )
Stop spelling it Rosevelt. It's Roosevelt.
have some respect for Teddy. ( Although I'm not sure that's the Roosevelt it's named after. )
-
You frickin' public school guys ! ( I'm actually public school too. Go Surfriders. )
Stop spelling it Rosevelt. It's Roosevelt.
have some respect for Teddy. ( Although I'm not sure that's the Roosevelt it's named after. )
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
You frickin' public school guys ! ( I'm actually public school too. Go Surfriders. )
Stop spelling it Rosevelt. It's Roosevelt.
have some respect for Teddy. ( Although I'm not sure that's the Roosevelt it's named after. )
My bad Ok it's Roosevelt.
Now lets beat that one to death too!
-
My bad Ok it's Roosevelt.
Now lets beat that one to death too!
Wow Kekoa, small kine cool your jets. (When's the last time you guys heard that saying :D )
It's all in fun.
I was actually ragging Hvy who started the post. :shaka:
( Hvy you know it's all in fun )
-
Wow Kekoa, small kine cool your jets. (When's the last time you guys heard that saying :D )
It's all in fun.
I was actually ragging Hvy who started the post. :shaka:
( Hvy you know it's all in fun )
Rough Riders = Teddy
-
Rough Riders = Teddy
Rough Riders = Screamers :love:
-
Rough Riders = Screamers :love:
Rough riders = Eastern Europeans.
Guess they still got that USSR approach
-
Rough riders = Eastern Europeans.
Guess they still got that USSR approach
Just not happy of the way things are being twisted about what I said Q. I am sure you would feel the same. I do just want to be done with this too.
-
Just not happy of the way things are being twisted about what I said Q. I am sure you would feel the same. I do just want to be done with this too.
or Aiea i guess
-
huh. and there's an okina in 'Aiea
JJKG!
if somebody stabbing me please shoot them k thanks bye.
(just watched a video of guy hands up in the air but the cops shot him anyways. don't be that guy)
-
huh. and there's an okina in 'Aiea
JJKG!
if somebody stabbing me please shoot them k thanks bye.
(just watched a video of guy hands up in the air but the cops shot him anyways. don't be that guy)
You gotta work on that spelling too silly boy
-
Happy Aloha Friday
(http://comedicallywitty.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/sil3.jpg)
-
Happy Aloha Friday
(http://comedicallywitty.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/sil3.jpg)
Your creepy ;D
-
Your creepy ;D
You're **
>:D
-
Rough Riders = Screamers :love:
Rough riders = Eastern Europeans.
Guess they still got that USSR approach
You guys give a whole new meaning to Rough Rider shooting ! :shake:
-
(http://comedicallywitty.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/sil3.jpg)
Age progression image of teen suspect?
-
You're **
>:D
and you're well you know :thumbsup:
-
(http://comedicallywitty.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/sil3.jpg)
Age progression image of teen suspect?
Very,very scary!
-
Media agenda on display after school shooting that wasn’t a school shooting
On Tuesday, January 28, the national media went into an uproar while reporting on what they perceived to be the latest school shooting.
Regular programming was interrupted with BREAKING NEWS and ALERTs and newsreaders in a frenzy about a high school in Hawaii being
in lockdown after reports of shots fired. Shouts and cries of “OMG!”, “evil guns!”, “school in lockdown!”, “THE CHILDREN!” were the order of the
day. All of the national media outlets got in on the act, from the 24/7 cable news channels to the major newspapers and numerous Internet sites.
But it wasn’t even really a school shooting, at least not the type they would lead you to believe. The person with a gun that fired the shots was a
police officer, supposedly the only type of person responsible enough to own or carry a gun, according to the anti-gun crowd in the media.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of the national media leans to the left, and their anti-gun agenda was on full display that day. Rather
than take the time to investigate the full story before rushing on air, they instead chose to promote their anti-gun agenda through biased fear mongering,
playing on the emotions of parents fearful for the safety of their children and schools. Once the actual facts of the story began coming to light,
the media quickly stopped talking about it, as it no longer fit in with their narrative. Unfortunately, this has become all too typical these days.
http://www.examiner.com/article/media-agenda-on-display-after-school-shooting-that-wasn-t-a-school-shooting (http://www.examiner.com/article/media-agenda-on-display-after-school-shooting-that-wasn-t-a-school-shooting)
-
Media agenda on display after school shooting that wasn’t a school shooting
http://www.examiner.com/article/media-agenda-on-display-after-school-shooting-that-wasn-t-a-school-shooting (http://www.examiner.com/article/media-agenda-on-display-after-school-shooting-that-wasn-t-a-school-shooting)
Sad but true. Liberal tactics mostly attempt to incite an emotional response. Dirty tactics maybe?
-
Very,very scary!
Silence of the
the
the
ah NVM
;)
-
This what I stated that started this whole ridiculous twisted bending by HiCarry. Really come on read it again and again and again and tell me it is related in anyway to what he purports it to mean.
Either you people are so radicalized, militant and. anti LE or just plain looking for a fight I just do not know. Never did I ever make a claim of us giving up our rights to anyone or anything or any whatever. Video of LE…WTF! How did anything I said connect to such a far off topic. Jeeeeez. Is this a radicalized anti government anti LE forum? I may have had a different understanding when I first started hanging out around here. Try as you will to find an enemy, I know my positions and politics and I will stand by them, even when some will try and fabricate a controversy out of nothing at all.
Let me try again, and preference it with two statements. First, I am neither anti LE or a radical, or radicalized, as you put it. Considering I just spent a good deal of time actually working with LE last weekend and as a regular component of my employment, you trying to make such a claim to defend your keyboard tirades are laughable. Second, I truly didn't mean to offend you and weighed in so I could better understand your position. Which I, and at least a few other people on this board interpreted as suggesting law-abiding citizens should give up individual rights in order to "comply" with LE regardless of the situation or circumstances. If you choose to, instead of clarifying your remarks, attack me and suggest that because I question your sentiments I am anti-LE, then that shows more about you and your intolerance to alternate view points than my opinion of LE. And while I am not "...just plain looking for a fight" I won't let what I believe to be bad advice go unchallenged. If you know your positions and politics, clarify them rather than attack anyone you think disagrees with you. I am happy to agree to disagree but don't take kindly to bullying ad hominem attacks by anyone.
Other elements of your statements also caused some confusion and concern, such as (and I paraphrase) "if you ain't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about." Don't you understand that in a broader context such statements, along with "if you don't have anything to hide you won't mind us searching" are the prelude to government agents depriving you of rights? And that seemingly minor encroachments of our rights, be it detainment, search and seizure, or firearms, is the beginning of the slippery slope? If indeed you meant to say comply only in the context of presenting a deadly threat to an officer, then I have no problem with your somewhat inarticulate and unclear statements. I stand behind the officer's decision to shoot that kid without reservation. I believe that if you raise a knife or gun up to someone, anyone, you deserve to get shot. Period. End of story. If however you want to suggest that someone engaged in any legal activity simply comply with illegal or improper LE commands, just to expedite the conclusion of the encounter, then we disagree. Rights not exercised are lost.
-
Let me try again, and preference it with two statements. First, I am neither anti LE or a radical, or radicalized, as you put it. Considering I just spent a good deal of time actually working with LE last weekend and as a regular component of my employment, you trying to make such a claim to defend your keyboard tirades are laughable. Second, I truly didn't mean to offend you and weighed in so I could better understand your position. Which I, and at least a few other people on this board interpreted as suggesting law-abiding citizens should give up individual rights in order to "comply" with LE regardless of the situation or circumstances. If you choose to, instead of clarifying your remarks, attack me and suggest that because I question your sentiments I am anti-LE, then that shows more about you and your intolerance to alternate view points than my opinion of LE. And while I am not "...just plain looking for a fight" I won't let what I believe to be bad advice go unchallenged. If you know your positions and politics, clarify them rather than attack anyone you think disagrees with you. I am happy to agree to disagree but don't take kindly to bullying ad hominem attacks by anyone.
Other elements of your statements also caused some confusion and concern, such as (and I paraphrase) "if you ain't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about." Don't you understand that in a broader context such statements, along with "if you don't have anything to hide you won't mind us searching" are the prelude to government agents depriving you of rights? And that seemingly minor encroachments of our rights, be it detainment, search and seizure, or firearms, is the beginning of the slippery slope? If indeed you meant to say comply only in the context of presenting a deadly threat to an officer, then I have no problem with your somewhat inarticulate and unclear statements. I stand behind the officer's decision to shoot that kid without reservation. I believe that if you raise a knife or gun up to someone, anyone, you deserve to get shot. Period. End of story. If however you want to suggest that someone engaged in any legal activity simply comply with illegal or improper LE commands, just to expedite the conclusion of the encounter, then we disagree. Rights not exercised are lost.
I am not gonna even read your crap. Get over it my friend move on in life if u got one :shaka:
-
Grammer police and people who challenge others OPINIONS are irratting fks. If dis braddahs opinion is that only criminals disobey LE, then leave it alone. You tried to share your fkn opinion and he didnt agree. Nuff stfu and let it go, no need to keep going on and on. Just to be clear, im talking to you hicarry. And if you were wondering... I am a Farrington grad. LoL. Go Govs
-
Grammer police and people who challenge others OPINIONS are irratting fks. If dis braddahs opinion is that only criminals disobey LE, then leave it alone. You tried to share your fkn opinion and he didnt agree. Nuff stfu and let it go, no need to keep going on and on. Just to be clear, im talking to you hicarry. And if you were wondering... I am a Farrington grad. LoL. Go Govs
And if he was of the opinion that no one should own guns should THAT opinion not be challenged, either?
-
Nope, its called respect.
-
Nope, its called respect.
Umm, wouldn't that just be a passive person?
Isn't disagreeing on different point of views, stating facts or your own pov and learning from others the point of this forum? From what I gathered from your post you would rather let some lame or incorrect post go unchallenged due to respect? Fuck no. Don't project that "passive" mentality on me and call that "respect".
-
And if he was of the opinion that no one should own guns should THAT opinion not be challenged, either?
yup as i thought no life poor pitiful sap
-
Grammer police and people who challenge others OPINIONS are irratting fks. If dis braddahs opinion is that only criminals disobey LE, then leave it alone. You tried to share your fkn opinion and he didnt agree. Nuff stfu and let it go, no need to keep going on and on. Just to be clear, im talking to you hicarry. And if you were wondering... I am a Farrington grad. LoL. Go Govs
Nope, its called respect.
Whoa whoa whoa..... Nope that is not respect, You got that all wrong there bud.
"people who challenge others OPINIONS are irratting fks." What is wrong with this here? If you cannot back your opinions with reason then you might as well be a liberal gun grabber that uses pure illogical emotion to twist and spin the truth to bend people's ideas on the evilness of guns. People who challenge either do not understand "others OPINIONS" and wish to understand better, Which is NOT " irratting fks", Or Disagree with "others OPINIONS", in which case alternate ideas are exchanged and discussed, there by, a mutual understanding can either be reached or a mutual agreement to agree to disagree can be met. Which is ALSO NOT " irratting fks".
yup as i thought no life poor pitiful sap
The point of a discussion is to state opinions and ideas, provide guidance and advice, and/or debate said ideas or advice. Name calling and other trolling that does not add any useful input into the discussion does not grow any part of the point of the discussion. Name calling is no way to win a debate, only retort with facts can achieve that. Other wise, agree to disagree and leave it at that.
-
Grammer police and people who challenge others OPINIONS are irratting fks. If dis braddahs opinion is that only criminals disobey LE, then leave it alone. You tried to share your fkn opinion and he didnt agree. Nuff stfu and let it go, no need to keep going on and on. Just to be clear, im talking to you hicarry. And if you were wondering... I am a Farrington grad. LoL. Go Govs
Embarassing, representing the Govs with language like that.
I can understand the use of that language if you are a freshman at Farrington.
Yes, I went to Farrington and they taught me how to write better than that.
-
Grammer police and people who challenge others OPINIONS are irratting fks. If dis braddahs opinion is that only criminals disobey LE, then leave it alone. You tried to share your fkn opinion and he didnt agree. Nuff stfu and let it go, no need to keep going on and on. Just to be clear, im talking to you hicarry. And if you were wondering... I am a Farrington grad. LoL. Go Govs
Umm, wouldn't that just be a passive person?
Isn't disagreeing on different point of views, stating facts or your own pov and learning from others the point of this forum? From what I gathered from your post you would rather let some lame or incorrect post go unchallenged due to respect? Fuck no. Don't project that "passive" mentality on me and call that "respect".
Read the words in bold that I wrote. Go gather your thoughts again. If youre still confused, stfu, dont keep trying, cuz at this point, I really dont give a fuck what you think. And I can project whatever da fuck I want and call it what I like.. if you dont like that, Tough shit. Its MY opinion and i hope you can respect it, if you cant, then I will not value or respect your opinions either.
-
Embarassing, representing the Govs with language like that.
I can understand the use of that language if you are a freshman at Farrington.
Yes, I went to Farrington and they taught me how to write better than that.
LoL sorry to make you shame bro. I dont claim to be the smartest fellow but looks like dis guy picking on the bruddah for having an opinion. GoGovs!
-
I'm at bench 80... I would love to meet you
-
Read the words in bold that I wrote. Go gather your thoughts again. If youre still confused, stfu, dont keep trying, cuz at this point, I really dont give a fuck what you think. And I can project whatever da fuck I want and call it what I like.. if you dont like that, Tough shit. Its MY opinion and i hope you can respect it, if you cant, then I will not value or respect your opinions either.
Here is one person's opinion:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." - Adolf Hitler
People can agree or disagree with your opinion. Accept it with serenity. Take the feedback as a source of validity to your argument and be honest with yourself.
-
Whoa whoa whoa..... Nope that is not respect, You got that all wrong there bud.
was I talking to you? What is your definition of respecting someones opinion?
"people who challenge others OPINIONS are irratting fks." What is wrong with this here? If you cannot back your opinions with reason then you might as well be a liberal gun grabber that uses pure illogical emotion to twist and spin the truth to bend people's ideas on the evilness of guns. People who challenge either do not understand "others OPINIONS" and wish to understand better, Which is NOT " irratting fks", Or Disagree with "others OPINIONS", in which case alternate ideas are exchanged and discussed, there by, a mutual understanding can either be reached or a mutual agreement to agree to disagree can be met. Which is ALSO NOT " irratting fks".
My post was directed SPECIFICALLY toward hicarry. BUT irratating fks, like you, like butt in so... go re-read what I wrote. And sometimes people who challenge also try to push their agendas or point of view too much and alter others opinion until it is like their own instead of agreeing to disagree which im MY opinion is the threshold for irratating. Let me clarify for you, i said you can try to share your opinion, but when it becomes obvious that it is not working then theres a point where you agree to disagree. It is clear if you read the mutha fkn 6 pages of posts... that braddah kekoa has told braddah hicarry enough and move on. (I.e. agree to disagree) but da guy keep going... and thats irratating. If you still dont get it, im am notifying you of my opinion and I disagree with you, lets not discuss further.
-
I'm at bench 80... I would love to meet you
Im in Kalihi, and id love to meet you too, no homo.
-
Here is one person's opinion:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." - Adolf Hitler
People can agree or disagree with your opinion. Accept it with serenity. Take the feedback as a source of validity to your argument and be honest with yourself.
thats deep bu. Just like the shit in this thread. Pretty soon im gonna need a snorkel. LoL
-
Im in Kalihi, and id love to meet you too, no homo.
Alright, I've used up my shit talkin for the day... this made me laugh though. I'm sure we'll cross paths sometime. Until then :shaka:
-
Alright, I've used up my shit talkin for the day... this made me laugh though. I'm sure we'll cross paths sometime. Until then :shaka:
It's ok to cross paths as long as you don't cross swords
-
Whoa whoa whoa..... Nope that is not respect, You got that all wrong there bud.
"people who challenge others OPINIONS are irratting fks." What is wrong with this here? If you cannot back your opinions with reason then you might as well be a liberal gun grabber that uses pure illogical emotion to twist and spin the truth to bend people's ideas on the evilness of guns. People who challenge either do not understand "others OPINIONS" and wish to understand better, Which is NOT " irratting fks", Or Disagree with "others OPINIONS", in which case alternate ideas are exchanged and discussed, there by, a mutual understanding can either be reached or a mutual agreement to agree to disagree can be met. Which is ALSO NOT " irratting fks".
The point of a discussion is to state opinions and ideas, provide guidance and advice, and/or debate said ideas or advice. Name calling and other trolling that does not add any useful input into the discussion does not grow any part of the point of the discussion. Name calling is no way to win a debate, only retort with facts can achieve that. Other wise, agree to disagree and leave it at that.
I see you got all the inter jargon down fine, good for you. waaaawaaaawaaaa.
-
Grammer police and people who challenge others OPINIONS are irratting fks.
Ever thought about how grammar and the way you construct your sentences may impact on what people read? After all, a forum is about words and putting them to digital format. The guys statement read a specific way. He may have not meant it in that fashion, but his words don't back it up.
-
Here is one person's opinion:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." - Adolf Hitler
People can agree or disagree with your opinion. Accept it with serenity. Take the feedback as a source of validity to your argument and be honest with yourself.
agree and disagree is one thing. completely twisting things into something not even related to the intended comments is not fair or right. the point of debate is to stay on the topic of debate not juxtapose it with a completely separate dialogue to attempt to cause one to espouse your beliefs or create a jumping platform for your agenda.
-
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
I brought extra ... Q likes popcorn! :rofl:
-
Ever thought about how grammar and the way you construct your sentences may impact on what people read? After all, a forum is about words and putting them to digital format. The guys statement read a specific way. He may have not meant it in that fashion, but his words don't back it up.
Ok Fun read this:
Nailed it Ren!! Yes there are bad cops and we just have to trust the system will find them and take care of them, but I am certain there are far more that are good and mean well all the time. These guys deal with the worst of society everyday, as far as to the possibility of not coming home from work…ever. You pull a knife on a cop and use it you deserve to be shot. You disobey an order of compliance from an officer you probably are up to no good anyway. If your not up to no good you settle with the PD and be done.
By the way I am no cop, I do however believe it the standards and norms of a grounded stable society and if we need police that enforce rules and laws to maintain that I say do it.
And this:
So to spell it out for you, cause apparently you cannot determine it yourself, the contact with LE that I am speaking of would be one brought on due to some sort of criminal act or intent of a crime by a particular individual(s). GET IT???!!! Your freaking kidding me if your really think I would ever think it was OK to have LE just willy nilly stop an individual. There seems to be a great disconnect to the understanding that I never said anything about random unwarranted contacts with PD as related to the decision by the young man that chose to bring a PD contact on himself at Rosevelt High School.
All comments to spell it out for you grammatically inept individuals (2). How the F+++ does this impart anything you and your pal seem think it means. Pathetic. Bold, italic and underlined just so you can actually see it.
-
Ever thought about how grammar and the way you construct your sentences has a significant impact on what people read? After all, a forum is about words and putting them to digital format.
actually, I have but obviously im not a lawyer type. You ever thought about this forum being 2A"Hawaii" and consider that locals communicate via a modified form of english based on the region and diverse cultures that reside here in the islands?
-
actually, I have but obviously im not a lawyer type. You ever thought about this forum being 2A"Hawaii" and consider that locals communicate via a modified form of english based on the region and diverse cultures that reside here in the islands?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Wallace_R._Farrington,_G._G._Bain_photo_portrait.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Wallace_R._Farrington,_G._G._Bain_photo_portrait.jpg)
** Removed IMG tag; the picture is huge! ** - Funtimes
-
uncle wally knows, cuz its what is taught in his school.
Ren, did you learn something different there? Be honest.
** removed huge picture **: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Wallace_R._Farrington,_G._G._Bain_photo_portrait.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Wallace_R._Farrington,_G._G._Bain_photo_portrait.jpg) - Funtimes
-
Anybody hear about a police shooting at Roosevelt High School? :rofl:
-
ren, your picture is a little small
could you please make it a little bigger?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nMmO1Glc80&feature=youtube_gdata_player (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nMmO1Glc80&feature=youtube_gdata_player)
:shaka:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nMmO1Glc80&feature=youtube_gdata_player (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nMmO1Glc80&feature=youtube_gdata_player)
:shaka:
now dat wuz funny
-
Edited some of those posts to remove that huge, huge picture. Posting to tech b/c I couldn't resize them with BB code. :(
Going to explore what options we have and if we can resize the images in some sort of fashion. :stopjack:
-
All comments to spell it out for you grammatically inept individuals (2). How the F+++ does this impart anything you and your pal seem think it means. Pathetic. Bold, italic and underlined just so you can actually see it.
You are quite amusing. You get upset because people read what you wrote, but what you wrote doesn't mean what you wanted it to. And, we are the ones to blame? #facepalm
More importantly, instead of just saying, "Hey, that is not what I meant," in a respectful and professional tone, you rant and pounded out insults like a 10 year old. You accused people of being "radicalized, militant and. [sic] anti LE [sic]." Then, you further went to call this a "radicalized anti government [sic] LE forum." And, then, you tried to say he was creating "controversy out of nothing," which was clearly not the case, because other individuals, including myself, read your statements in the same light.
You even further went to state the following:
"Why is it so hard to allow a contact whether right or wrong to be cleared up clearly by PD and then be on your way"; and,
"I understand the fine line of details we are talking about here, but, if you are doing no wrong it will be cleared up and be done with."
Your statement demonstrates, rather clearly I might add, that you are of the opinion that even if you aren't doing wrong it is alright for the police to stop you for their contact until the situation is "cleared up." HiCarry simply disagrees with your statement and pointed out why; I agree with him and believe his response to be both logical and legally correct, because the police do not just get to stop you for no reason and seize you until it is "cleared up."
.
-
actually, I have but obviously im not a lawyer type. You ever thought about this forum being 2A"Hawaii" and consider that locals communicate via a modified form of english based on the region and diverse cultures that reside here in the islands?
Don't make excuses. You are perfectly capable of writing a clear and concise statement. Saying stuff like this discredits the people of Hawaii who are, in my experience generally, thoughtful, respectful, and very intelligent (politicians excepted).
-
Don't make excuses. You are perfectly capable of writing a clear concise statement. Saying stuff like this discredits the people of Hawaii who are in my experience generally nothing short intelligent,thoughtful, and respectful (politicians excepted).
not making excuses, im stating a fact, that im not a lawyer type.
I am capable of making a choice to communicate in the dominant language of the islands (pidgin). Interesting how you have no problem imposing your language standards on me by expecting me to stoop to your level and write clearly and concisely as defined by you, I say fuck dat.
With that said... whats up with the short comment? You know how to communicate clearly and concisely?
Saying stuff like this reinforces my opinion that the people who are living in Hawaii but arent familiar with the local language, customs, and culture are in my experience generally selfish, inconsiderate, and disrespectful (politicians included).
ill go have my snickers, you go have yours.
-
Don't make excuses. You are perfectly capable of writing a clear and concise statement. Saying stuff like this discredits the people of Hawaii who are, in my experience generally, thoughtful, respectful, and very intelligent (politicians excepted).
Much better!
-
not making excuses, im stating a fact, that im not a lawyer type.
I am capable of making a choice to communicate in the dominant language of the islands (pidgin). Interesting how you have no problem imposing your language standards on me by expecting me to stoop to your level and write clearly and concisely as defined by you, I say fuck dat.
With that said... whats up with the short comment? You know how to communicate clearly and concisely?
Saying stuff like this reinforces my opinion that the people who are living in Hawaii but arent familiar with the local language, customs, and culture are in my experience generally selfish, inconsiderate, and disrespectful (politicians included).
ill go have my snickers, you go have yours.
First, I'm familiar with Hawaiian language and culture. After spending almost a decade in Hawaii, I'm actually very familiar with it. My wife's family is also Hawaiian on one side and Portuguese / Filipino on the other. I also understand pidgin; I have no problems understanding when people talk li dat. He wasn't speaking pidgin. He typed something. It was read. His context was off - and he didn't appreciate being called on it. That's not our fault as the reader; it's the fault of the presenter.
-
(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/padlock-chains-white-background-17590903.jpg)
-
You are quite amusing. You get upset because people read what you wrote, but what you wrote doesn't mean what you wanted it to. And, we are the ones to blame? #facepalm
More importantly, instead of just saying, "Hey, that is not what I meant," in a respectful and professional tone, you rant and pounded out insults like a 10 year old. You accused people of being "radicalized, militant and. [sic] anti LE [sic]." Then, you further went to call this a "radicalized anti government [sic] LE forum." And, then, you tried to say he was creating "controversy out of nothing," which was clearly not the case, because other individuals, including myself, read your statements in the same light.
You even further went to state the following:
"Why is it so hard to allow a contact whether right or wrong to be cleared up clearly by PD and then be on your way"; and,
"I understand the fine line of details we are talking about here, but, if you are doing no wrong it will be cleared up and be done with."
Your statement demonstrates, rather clearly I might add, that you are of the opinion that even if you aren't doing wrong it is alright for the police to stop you for their contact until the situation is "cleared up." HiCarry simply disagrees with your statement and pointed out why; I agree with him and believe his response to be both logical and legally correct, because the police do not just get to stop you for no reason and seize you until it is "cleared up."
.
Clearly trying to make sense to individuals that do not understand sense is pointless Funtimes. You can have the last words you and your sycophant posse. You are champions.
Uh oh this cause maybe f__ed!!!
-
First, I'm familiar with Hawaiian language and culture. After spending almost a decade in Hawaii, I'm actually very familiar with it. My wife's family is also Hawaiian on one side and Portuguese / Filipino on the other. I also understand pidgin; I have no problems understanding when people talk li dat. He wasn't speaking pidgin. He typed something. It was read. His context was off - and he didn't appreciate being called on it. That's not our fault as the reader; it's the fault of the presenter.
Typical classic arrogance, you don't know crap about our culture. Almost a decade, are you kidding me. Now I fully understand what I am dealing with here.
-
(http://www.oknation.net/blog/home/blog_data/584/12584/images/helloworld/locked27xr.jpg)
-
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
-
As many people have asked, we have locked this topic. I think all sides have expressed themselves with what they want to say and we can close it out.