Dr. E.Z. Ryder
-
Posts
15 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Partners
Immigration Wiki
Guides
Immigration Forms
Times
Gallery
Store
Blogs
Posts posted by Dr. E.Z. Ryder
-
-
-
Because they're white. Better now?
This a genuine answer?
One day we need to open a thread and name it "Guess the logical fallacy" and then go through posts like this one and have poll to "Name that logical fallacy!"
OK, Well lets see - the quote is there lets spend 30 seconds on Google.. the first one appears to be an extreme leftist that thought the best way to protest the open carry law was to go to a baseball game and show his gun to all the children. Guess he made his point as it became a topic of conversation again. He was not breaking any laws and was not in possession of the gun when police finally found him.
WHAT?"...when police finally found him."The reports states police were responding to 22 9/11 calls from the park. It explicitly says they showed up AT the park and confronted him at said park, the scene of the disturbance. Where did you get that he wasn't in possession of the gun from?Did he just throw it in a bush somewhere when they showed up?And what makes that guy a "leftist"?He was not breaking any laws...
Neither was Crawford.
The second guy was most likely a right wing nut pointing a rifle at traffic - Very good work by officers to sneak up on him. We don't have details if he immediately dropped his weapon but we do know that at some point he was belligerent and was Tazered. This guy was lucky not to have been shot.
I guess so...And "right wing nut"? That guy just comes off crazy to me.The third was a woman who when confronted by the police did not have possession of her gun. They found it later in her car and it was loaded.. Women really have to work hard to be shot.
What the hell?
Are we reading the same article? Your description is the complete opposite of what it says:
A sheriff's detective soon stopped Alday and was joined by a deputy, who asked Alday if she had a gun. "Yes, I have a concealed weapons permit, and you are not taking my gun," the arrest report states.
Alday refused to get out of her vehicle, and the deputy twice stunned her with his Taser after she reached toward the passenger seat and continued to struggle. The deputies then pulled her from the SUV and handcuffed her.
The gun — a loaded Smith & Wesson .38 Airweight — was found in the center console.
They confronted her when they pulled her over in her car. She was driving right from the Walmart where she committed the incident. She was in possession of the gun because it was in the car right beside her.
Not only did she not comply, they tased her twice because they saw her actually reaching for something.
I'd say she was working pretty damn hard.
-
I have a question.Why are these people still alive?
-
Pat Robertson is attacking Robin Williams for "worshiping money"?
Sooooo... what exactly would Pat Robertson call this?
I doubt Williams had involvement with things on that level...
-
You just don't get it. Good luck
So... still nothing, eh? Not even concerning the cop lying to the woman about the license plate number?
-
I wonder what a chick tract is ?
The Chick Tract:Some Chick Tracts:F---ING BRILLIANT
:Chick Tract crtiques:Including one of this gem:Chich Tract parodies:My favorite: -
-
Jinx was an angry black man that used to post here. Thought you might be him re-incarnated. Although your posts aren't nearly as angry as his.
It's very rare for someone to join VJ and immediately end up in this forum, so you will be under suspicion.
Anyway, welcome to the group.
I see.
So I take it this guy went "full r-----" and got himself banned?
Maybe I should dial it back a bit myself. I do tend to get worked up at times.
But anyways, thanks.
You just don't get it. The caller was on the phone with the dispatcher. The caller was following the car he/she believed was the one. The caller told the dispatcher that the car in question just exited the freeway. The cops pulled over the car the caller told them to.(via the dispatcher)
If you can't understand this....then I give up. I only speak English.
I know that.The dispatch information was the ONLY information given, and hence the ONLY information they should have followed, simply because they had no other information. They should have obeyed the vehicle description given to them because they had no other description.I've noticed that you keep referring to Kametra Barbour's car was THE car they were supposed to be after, as if it was only her car that was present and no other car. Maybe this is the issue? Miss Barbour's car was not the only car exiting a freeway.You mean to tell me only one car ever exits a freeway at a time?Say I'm given orders to lead a SWAT team to bust a drug lab in your neighborhood. So I should raid YOUR house, because it's in your neighborhood, and that makes it THE house out of all the other houses present in that neighborhood, never mind that your house doesn't anywhere come close to the description provided to me? On top of that, it's perfectly okay for me to lie to your face and say your house matches the address even though I haven't been provided one?They were given a vehicle description for a reason. -
Jinxy, that you?
Who?
Get a mod to check my IP address if you want.
-
Damn! There are more new sock puppets here than socks at a Gold Toe Outlet.
My advice is this.
You need to create another sock puppet account and then just argue with yourself.
"Sock puppet." Right...The only other account I have here is a non-confirmed one because I forgot to add the number in my email address when registering.I registered because I came across this thread:All full of implications and taking everything at face value with "No problem here. He brought it on himself" and with very few questioning things like how a "Marine" was unable to tell a freaking AR-15 from a BB gun, plus some other nonsense about "Black on Black crime" and how Blacks "tend to bring this sort of violence on themselves."I'll admit, I got a little annoyed. I dunno, maybe because I'm also Black, and probably because my OCD was pushing me, instead of lurking, I signed up.If you can't understand English....maybe I will speak a language you understand? You are a ### #### #####!!!!
Maybe it's you who don't understand English.
The only thing the police listed to in that instance was the dispatcher. NO ONE ELSE.
The dispatcher is the one who alerted the police to what was happening, who then proceeded to outright ignore every single detail the dispatcher provided to them about the suspects and the vehicle they were driving, other than the occupants were Black. As a result, they pulled over and harassed a completely different car.
You implied it was okay for them to ignore the information the dispatcher provided them because it may not have been "100% accurate" and because "# people,age,sex are not always accurate."
Why would the police be drawing their "description" from somewhere other than the dispatch report? Where did their more "accurate" information come from? The dispatch itself is the thing they were responding to. How would they know whether the dispatch information was "accurate" or not if the info in the dispatch itself was the only info they knew about the situation and how they even knew about the situation at all in the first place?
Where the hell else would they know anything about the perps or what they were doing beforehand? So it's okay for them to outright ignore what's in the dispatch because they have their own description of the car, suspects and other more "accurate" knowledge that came from... nowhere?
They were portraying gross incompetence at best, and downright willful ignorance at worst.
And you still haven't explained why the cop lied to the woman about her license plate number matching.
Maybe you can't answer any of this because you have no argument?
-
They weren't.They pulled that car over because the 911 caller was telling them that the "gun wavers" were in that car.
"That car"?You mean the car that did not in any way come even close to matching the description given to them?
# people,age,sex are not always accurate.
So the information from the dispatcher was inaccurate? So where else where they getting their information from, given that it was that dispatch itself they were responding to?
And again, why did the cop lie to the woman about the license plate number?
-
That was what they were trying to do.....based on the description from the caller. Don't forget it was at night.Colors are hard to see.
Plus...you are assuming all 911 calls are 100% accurate. The police know things,# people,age,sex are not always accurate.
The police acted upon the advice they were given and did an excellent job. It is unfortunate the caller was confused about the vehicle.
They "know things"?What did they know?The 911 call itself is what the cops were responding to in the first place. So why would they completely ignore what the 911 information actually SAYS?The cop also told her that her plate number "matched the description," when there was no license plate information given from the dispatcher.That means the cop actually lied. -
I guess when the cops tell you to hang up the phone, they mean it. Yikes.
So if what the attorney said is true, that gives them license to shoot someone?
-
hmm...The surveillance video has been released to the family.
According to the attorney, the video doesn't jibe with the cops' story.
John Crawford Case: It’s Open Carry for Whites and Open Season on Blacks
in Current Events and Hot Social Topics
Posted · Edited by Dr. E.Z. Ryder