-
Welcome to the new CAERF.
New management and more commited than ever! Have a look at some of the new features HERE.
If you experience any issue please let us know in the proper forum.
Joined
Sep 10, 2015
Messages 1,482
Messages 1,482
If an officer did that to someone I cared about, I would try to hurt the officer. Either hit him, or if I had a gun on me, shoot him.
If people continue to let government brown shirts abuse others, it will continue to happen.
My father was a police officer - even he admitted he was a fucking asshole when in uniform.
If the government is deemed to be dishonest, why do people trust police officers?
If people continue to let government brown shirts abuse others, it will continue to happen.
My father was a police officer - even he admitted he was a fucking asshole when in uniform.
If the government is deemed to be dishonest, why do people trust police officers?
Don't condemn the entire force because of a few bad apples. We have many many good Officers that wear the badge proudly and are decent folks.
Joined
Sep 10, 2015
Messages 1,482
Messages 1,482
Most officers are bad people. Most continue to harass and abuse citizens because they get paid ALOT of money to do so.
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages 33,654
Messages 33,654
One of the dumbest things you said, yet.
1....the floor was brick and not concrete!
2....it should not have required such a move.
3....don't want to get slammed to the floor.....don't resist. You'll get your chance to explain the actions that got you in the situation with the officer in the first place.
4....don't break the rules, won't have situations with police.
2....it should not have required such a move.
3....don't want to get slammed to the floor.....don't resist. You'll get your chance to explain the actions that got you in the situation with the officer in the first place.
4....don't break the rules, won't have situations with police.
Joined
Sep 10, 2015
Messages 1,482
Messages 1,482
There are over 400,000 laws on the books. Everyone breaks the law. To think otherwise is ignorant.
Joined
Sep 10, 2015
Messages 1,482
Messages 1,482
Just to further illustrate my point about everyone breaking the law because there are SO MANY laws:
https://www.nationalreview.com/arti...ns-too-many-criminals-timothy-head-matt-kibbe
From the article:
There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime,” retired Louisiana State University law professor John Baker told the Wall Street Journal in July 2011. “That is not an exaggeration.” That may sound unbelievable, but this is a lesson some Americans have, sadly, learned the hard way, through no real fault of their own.
John Yates, for example, built his career as a commercial fisherman. In August 2007, Yates and his crew were fishing in the Gulf of Mexico off the Florida coast when a state conservation officer, who was also a deputized federal agent, boarded his vessel to inspect their catch of red grouper. After inspecting some 3,000 fish, the official identified 72 red grouper that did not meet the minimum 20-inch conservation standard and issued a citation from the state. He ordered Yates to bring the undersized catch when he returned to port. When Yates returned to port the next day, armed federal agents stood by while inspectors reexamined his catch, finding only 69 fish under the minimum standard. Federal officials accused Yates of destroying evidence — the missing three red grouper — related to a federal investigation. “Nearly three years later, the federal government charged me with the destruction of evidence — yes, fish – to impede a federal investigation. I was subsequently arrested at my home. I have been blacklisted by boat owners, who fear federal investigations similar to mine,” Yates wrote last year. “I am now unable to make a living doing what I love to do.” In August 2011, Yates was convicted and sentenced to a 30-day jail term and three years of supervised release under a provision in the 2002 Sarbanes–Oxley law, passed in the wake of the Enron scandal. The law’s “anti-shredding” provision, meant to apply to the destruction of documents or files related to a federal financial-fraud investigation, has nothing to do with fish.
Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. In February, it threw out the conviction. And although she strangely voted to uphold the conviction, Justice Elena Kagan surmised that Yates’s unusual case “is unfortunately, not an outlier, but an emblem of a deeper pathology in the federal criminal code.”
End of reference.
So fisherman has violation written for 2% of his catch being under size limits - as if he could possibly inspect every single fish he catches in the ocean. Then, when it is inspected back shore, they accuse him of destroying evidence by 'throwing away 3 fish'. WTF??? No one is going to throw away 3 fish and keep 69 fish which don't meet regulation. His life is ruined by this scum government worker.
https://www.nationalreview.com/arti...ns-too-many-criminals-timothy-head-matt-kibbe
From the article:
There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime,” retired Louisiana State University law professor John Baker told the Wall Street Journal in July 2011. “That is not an exaggeration.” That may sound unbelievable, but this is a lesson some Americans have, sadly, learned the hard way, through no real fault of their own.
John Yates, for example, built his career as a commercial fisherman. In August 2007, Yates and his crew were fishing in the Gulf of Mexico off the Florida coast when a state conservation officer, who was also a deputized federal agent, boarded his vessel to inspect their catch of red grouper. After inspecting some 3,000 fish, the official identified 72 red grouper that did not meet the minimum 20-inch conservation standard and issued a citation from the state. He ordered Yates to bring the undersized catch when he returned to port. When Yates returned to port the next day, armed federal agents stood by while inspectors reexamined his catch, finding only 69 fish under the minimum standard. Federal officials accused Yates of destroying evidence — the missing three red grouper — related to a federal investigation. “Nearly three years later, the federal government charged me with the destruction of evidence — yes, fish – to impede a federal investigation. I was subsequently arrested at my home. I have been blacklisted by boat owners, who fear federal investigations similar to mine,” Yates wrote last year. “I am now unable to make a living doing what I love to do.” In August 2011, Yates was convicted and sentenced to a 30-day jail term and three years of supervised release under a provision in the 2002 Sarbanes–Oxley law, passed in the wake of the Enron scandal. The law’s “anti-shredding” provision, meant to apply to the destruction of documents or files related to a federal financial-fraud investigation, has nothing to do with fish.
Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. In February, it threw out the conviction. And although she strangely voted to uphold the conviction, Justice Elena Kagan surmised that Yates’s unusual case “is unfortunately, not an outlier, but an emblem of a deeper pathology in the federal criminal code.”
End of reference.
So fisherman has violation written for 2% of his catch being under size limits - as if he could possibly inspect every single fish he catches in the ocean. Then, when it is inspected back shore, they accuse him of destroying evidence by 'throwing away 3 fish'. WTF??? No one is going to throw away 3 fish and keep 69 fish which don't meet regulation. His life is ruined by this scum government worker.
I'm with you that government is entirely too much involved in our daily lives and wants way too much control over us.
On the other hand, as a fisherman, he should know the laws. And therefore, he should have made sure he had no undersized fish. The Conservation officer was able to do it, why couldn't the crew? So once again, want to avoid trouble, don't break the rules. No undersized fish, none of this would have happened. Thanks for making my point.
E
ERecTile
Guest
I don't see how that body slam was necessary. The cop already had her off her feet. The body slam was totally for subduing her which I think was unnecessary force. Also looks like he "copped" a feel while he had her in the air.
I used to give cops a lot of leeway in my mind, but lately, there's been too many incidents where it looks like they're using excessive force.
I used to give cops a lot of leeway in my mind, but lately, there's been too many incidents where it looks like they're using excessive force.
G
Guido
Guest
I think it's always existed, the difference now is everyone has a cell phone with video to turn the tables on the cops.
I remember years ago being brought in for loitering and one officer placed a telephone book on my shoulder and said if I step one inch out of line he'd punch the book and rattle my jaw. Needless to say I didn't say boo, I was only 17 at the time and scared shitless.
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages 106
Messages 106
Another racist piece of shit popo.
SHouldnt your speedo give you superpower? How could you be scared? LOok at Superman and Batman in their speedos and not once they demonstrated fear. I 'm so disappointed.
He was young...probably still wearing tightie whities. No wonder the cop didn't want him to move an inch.
About this Discussion
16
Replies
834
Views
Last post made by Prim0
CAERF Community
Latest posts
-
❣️🌹❣️<< **[email protected]🌹MARKHAM: Sexy Wild Spinner NAOMI!!**>>❣️🌹❣️- Latest: Toronto Girlfriends
-
-
