Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Appears to meet the appearance? Wow!!!! Are you prepared to allow the police to use this standard for profiling?
Ok call the police I saw 3 black youths. They aren't doing anything wrong but they appear to meet the appearance of criminal activity. They are wearing hoodies, baggy pants half way down to their knees and they appear to be looking around.
The left screams about profiling and here we have the left profiling someone because he is pro gun.
I really need to say thank you. Everyday and I do mean everyday liberals give me a good laugh.
OUTSTANDING boneyard1962!
Unfortunately they just don't get it.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 04-22-2018 at 07:31 PM..
Yea, of course, because calling the police on lawful activities is such a great use of resources.
Can you imagine the holy hell they'd raise if they were the ones to call 911 for a genuine emergency and the police arrived too late to save their sorry asses, because they were too tied up answering a baseless complaint?
Unfortunately they can't think that far ahead. Everything is a knee jerk reaction with these people.
Appears to meet the appearance? Wow!!!! Are you prepared to allow the police to use this standard for profiling?
Ok call the police I saw 3 black youths. They aren't doing anything wrong but they appear to meet the appearance of criminal activity. They are wearing hoodies, baggy pants half way down to their knees and they appear to be looking around.
The left screams about profiling and here we have the left profiling someone because he is pro gun.
I really need to say thank you. Everyday and I do mean everyday liberals give me a good laugh.
Terrorists don't carry holstered pistols to do their day to day activities. They act covertly with firearms, bombs, airliners, and any other device they want. Mistaking a man with a holstered pistol, playing with his two daughter for a terrorist is MORONIC.
It is worse than that.... He didn't have a holstered pistol. All he had was a Tee-Shirt that triggered the woman into hysteria, and when the police arrived he gave them his CCL license as ID, when they as him for ID.
Well if der, you weren't there. You made the claim that it was a fake story as if you were there, der. You can reason all you want but that still doesn't change the fact that you weren't there to either corroborate or disprove that story. Your opinion of what may have happened doesn't count for a ****ing thing. Do you think that would hold up in a court of law? "Well your honor I really wasn't a witness to the crime and didn't see or hear a ****ing thing. I'm just using reason based on what I read." No, you can't just use reason, either you witnessed what had happened or you didn't, DER!
Why do people feel the need to broadcast their ignorance so loudly
What do you think happens in a court of law? Have you been on a jury? Heard about a jury? Does the phrase "preponderance of the evidence" mean anything to you? How does a judge or jury come to a decision in a case unless they were there---der!
Un-****ing-believable how god damn stupid people are. And most of them posting so frequently in the P&oC thread-which explains a hell of a lot.
First, to be correct in the way the facts are stated, I already said that he wasn't breaking any laws, as far as I can tell. Although-- if you change the order of the message, putting "You Control Your Kids" before "I'll Control My Guns", I can see how it could be construed as a threat. Also, no where where in my post did I endorse every statement by the groups that you mention, and I made no mention of any of those groups.
And you're correct in saying that certain things that offend some people don't offend others, but that's a specious argument that depends on the crowd one associates with (i.e. "snitching" offends violent prisoners more than robbery). It's clear that some things simply shouldn't be done or said because they cross the line of decency. Choosing to wear a shirt like this, of all places, to a public park where kids are playing is a creepy and twisted thing to do, whether it's legal or not. He's not going to get any pats on the back for doing this (well...he may from some people, but that's because they think like that too) because he sure doesn't deserve them.
Someone may have the Constitutionally protected right to wear a shirt with the message "Hip Hip Horay for the K-K-K" but that doesn't mean it's going to win them awards for good manners or being a good citizen or neighborly or someone who deserves any respect whatsoever, just like wearing an offensive gun shirt in a public park isn't going to. I can tell you that I would not choose to associate with someone wearing that kind of shirt, nor would I knowingly hire someone like that to do any work for me.
I never claimed you did. I mentioned those groups only to prove a point. It's not at all a specious argument as it's based on fact. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I agree that: "some things simply shouldn't be done or said because they cross the line of decency." Like being festooned with swastika's and waltzing into a synagogue. Of course if a riot ensued, that individual would very likely be charged along with getting the sh*t beat out of him. Same with wearing that "Hip Hip Hooray for the K-K-K" shirt in an all black church or community.
But the whole issue is by who's standards of decency? I didn't find a T-shirt like that offensive or creepy as it wasn't directed towards anyone's race, color, sex, creed or religion. People of all races, colors, sex, creeds and religion support the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional law. It was making more of a political statement. It seems as though kids have committed these school massacre's with firearms, in particular Sandy Hook, Columbine and now Parkland. All by students or former students under their parents or adopted parents control. That shirt tells me that parents should control their own kids behavior before telling him how he should control his firearms. After all the kids are never to blame, it's always the gun's or the NRA's fault.
Myself? I don't wear any T-shirts or any articles of clothing that would advertise that I own guns or give anyone a hint that I'm packing heat. I don't even have any decals or bumper stickers on my truck that make any political statements or represent any pro-gun organizations that I belong to.
Why do people feel the need to broadcast their ignorance so loudly
What do you think happens in a court of law? Have you been on a jury? Heard about a jury? Does the phrase "preponderance of the evidence" mean anything to you? How does a judge or jury come to a decision in a case unless they were there---der!
Un-****ing-believable how god damn stupid people are. And most of them posting so frequently in the P&oC thread-which explains a hell of a lot.
I guess you're speaking for yourself---der. This has nothing to do with serving on a jury where actual evidence is presented either from eye witnesses to the crime or forensic evidence that was left behind. Then it's left up to a jury to decide based on that evidence. People are often thrown off juries if they had any prior knowledge of a crime such as newspaper, radio or TV accounts.
One things for God damn sure they're certainly not going to take any testimony from someone who never witnessed anything or was anywhere near the scene of a crime.
Un-****ing-believable how God damn stupid you really are.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 04-22-2018 at 09:00 PM..
Why do people feel the need to broadcast their ignorance so loudly
What do you think happens in a court of law? Have you been on a jury? Heard about a jury? Does the phrase "preponderance of the evidence" mean anything to you? How does a judge or jury come to a decision in a case unless they were there---der!
Un-****ing-believable how god damn stupid people are. And most of them posting so frequently in the P&oC thread-which explains a hell of a lot.
I have been on a jury, several times in fact. Chances are someone who isn't an actual witness or have any real evidence, wouldn't be called upon to testify.
Now there are experts who may give their expert opinions but not as actual witness to a crime. For example defendant is interviewed by a qualified shrink. The shrink may be asked to testify on what they in their professional opinion think of the individual. Do you in your expert opinion feel that so and so is capable of molesting cats?
Dogs maybe but not cats, the defendant has an irrational fear of cat fur.
I guess you're speaking for yourself---der. This has nothing to do with serving on a jury where actual evidence is presented either from eye witnesses to the crime or forensic evidence that was left behind. Then it's left up to a jury to decide based on that evidence. People are often thrown off juries if they had any prior knowledge of a crime such as newspaper, radio or TV accounts.
One things for God damn sure they're certainly not going to take any testimony from someone who never witnessed anything or was anywhere near the scene of a crime.
Un-****ing-believable how god damn stupid you really are.
Feel free to believe that this story, which appears almost nowhere, and always with a link to purchase the shirt, is real.
Why do people feel the need to broadcast their ignorance so loudly
What do you think happens in a court of law? Have you been on a jury? Heard about a jury? Does the phrase "preponderance of the evidence" mean anything to you? How does a judge or jury come to a decision in a case unless they were there---der!
Un-****ing-believable how god damn stupid people are. And most of them posting so frequently in the P&oC thread-which explains a hell of a lot.
i have been on several juries over the years, both civil and criminal. and the standards the jurors have to follow are different between the two. the phrase "preponderance of the evidence" applies only to civil juries, and that tells that the weight of the legitimate evidence that one side produces compared to the other side usually means the side that wins produces the most evidence.
in a criminal trial the phrase used is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which means that if there are reasonable doubts, then the defendant should be found not guilty.
in this case the preponderance of the evidence weighs in that the story is probably true since no evidence has been produced to indicate that the story was made up, only people who surmised that the story was made up. so at this point you lose.
now if you have any REAL evidence that this story is false, lets see it. the problem though is that you have only your "feelings" and sorry my frined but that is not only evidence, but the judge in the case would throw you out of court, an dpossibly charge you with contempt if you tried to foist your "feelings" on the court.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
