A Bad Experience With IMPD outside Circle Center Mall

[public servant]

If the cop were to tell his side of the story (which we all know won't happen)...

The bolded part is correct. Because a complaint has been filed he would risk losing his job if he did so.

 

[ATF Consumer]

The bolded part is correct. Because a complaint has been filed he would risk losing his job if he did so.

As long as he keeps quite he should be golden

 

[public servant]

As long as he keeps quite on here he should be golden

FIFY

 

[Whosyer]

and even if he is really his brother, he would have still lied to us in the original story you just quoted. it just doesnt hold water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw

 

[public servant]

Mars Hillian family tree...

 

[finity]

If the cop comes on here and tells his side will you believe him?

Possibly.

I will weigh both sides & determine who I think is most likely being truthful. I don't blindly follow ANY side.

It's not like I have to worry about that though, since the cop has a convenient excuse to not face "the jury".

All I'm saying is it's EXTREMELY hypocritical to call someone a liar out of hand because they won't (can't?) provide the exact "evidence" requested then not also demand the same evidence from the other side.

 

[sonny27]

If the cop comes on here and tells his side will you believe him?

Sure cops don't lie or use excessive force... I almost forgot, or violate the Constitution


Exclusive: Police beating of Las Vegas man caught on tape - News - ReviewJournal.com

 

[public servant]

Sure cops don't lie or use excessive force...

Neither does the general public. What's your point?

 

[public servant]

Or are you saying all cops lie and you can't trust any of them?

 

[sj kahr k40]

How about a beer summit between the officer and the OPs brother, we could record it and put it on utube.

 

[public servant]

Did you say beer???

 

[sj kahr k40]

Sure cops don't lie or use excessive force... I almost forgot, or violate the Constitution

 

[sonny27]

Neither does the general public. What's your point?

If you read the article and watched the video you would have gotten my point...

 

[sonny27]

Police officers are held to a higher standard...

 

[thompal]

He entered the mall and was immediately appropached by mall security and asked to leave, because they do not permit people to carry open or concealed in this mall. The security officer said that this is because they have plain clothed federal & state law enforcement on the premisses

Maybe it's just me but it seems that according to this security guard that the Simon mall people don't consider federal and state law enforcement officers people! I wonder if they consider them servants!

I'd be more interested in hearing why Simon thinks they need plainclothes FEDERAL LEO in the mall.

 

[thompal]

If you want to debate a point that has any coherence then tell me why the concept of compromise IN GENERAL (i.e. not related to this specific situation which I have ALREADY stated that I don't necessarily agree with) is not useful or even harmful. Until then, I think you're picking on the wrong dude in these posts.

A TRUE compromise is a situation where neither side is happy with the results, but where both perceive that they have made at least made a small victory.

However, we aren't talking about a TRUE compromise, we are discussing situations where the topic of interest is "rights." If one side wants the other side to voluntarily surrender some of their rights, and the other side agrees, where is the compromise? One side has merely forced his will on the other, while the person giving up his rights has gained nothing at all, and has only lost something. If this happens every few years (or months, or weeks), then those rights are merely being nibbled away until they are virtually non-existent.

 

[finity]

A TRUE compromise is a situation where neither side is happy with the results, but where both perceive that they have made at least made a small victory.

However, we aren't talking about a TRUE compromise, we are discussing situations where the topic of interest is "rights." If one side wants the other side to voluntarily surrender some of their rights, and the other side agrees, where is the compromise? One side has merely forced his will on the other, while the person giving up his rights has gained nothing at all, and has only lost something. If this happens every few years (or months, or weeks), then those rights are merely being nibbled away until they are virtually non-existent.

But only for those who voluntarily give them up.

For the rest of us those rights are still fully intact.

Unless those rights are taken away by LAWS passed by government.

But that's not what we are talking about here & I've already stated that I don't support those laws.

Besides, even in this situation, if the person voluntarily gives up a "right" then obviously they think they are getting something of value in return. It could be something as simple as good will or even that the other person will like them more. Who are we to tell someone else that their compromise isn't a good one. If they are OK with it then the results are on them.

Besides again, they aren't giving up "rights" in that situation either. We have no "rights" where another non-governmental individual is concerned.

If a guy says "hey can you cover that up? I'm uncomfortable". He's not infringing on your rights. He's just asking you to do something. If you say "OK" then you are both happy. If you don't want to then feel free to tell him "no thanks".

If a cop tells you to cover it up then they ARE infringing on your rights. That's a problem.

There is a BIG difference that SO MANY seem not to be able to get.

You only have "rights" where the government is concerned. Individuals can't infringe on your rights (except under VERY limited circumstances - & those have been artificially created by law or judicial decisions).

You're picking on the wrong guy. I'm not the one advocating giving up anything. I only promote the idea that COMPROMISE is necessary to a civilized society.

How many times do I have to repeat that?

 

[Hotdoger]

My Brother (RJ77) is now a member, but the system is not yet allowing him to post. I will have him post his description of this incident in his own words as soon as he is permitted to do so.

Tell him not to post.

They will use anything he posts to try to impeach him and nullify his complaint.

Civilian review board is a total joke don't expect anything to ever come of it.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Tell him not to post.

They will use anything he posts to try to impeach him and nullify his complaint.

it.

I agree. Neither party should post anything until it has been resolved.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I agree. Neither party should post anything until it has been resolved.

Then it'll never be posted...