Officer Pulls Gun on Student Picking Up Trash Outside of Dorm Building

[Zaroku]

But he gave his ID. So I don't understand why this is an issue.

I’ve been in japan too long.. I have to carry my ID everywhere .... it’s government issued it is the law..

[travestyny]

I’ve been in japan too long.. I have to carry my ID everywhere .... it’s government issued it is the law..

I've never had any run ins with the law while in Asia. What happens if you don't have ID on you? Maybe they take you in until someone can come and verify who you are?

[GGG Gloveking]

I appreciate the concern. It wouldn't be me getting mine taken, though. Sounds like you're trying to blame me.

It would be a cop who is bad at his job taking my life. But I don't live in fear. What can I say? Some of us are built for it and some of us aren't

More semantics from you. I'm not trying to attach blame, no more than if I said you got your money took by a thief. And if you're dead, who really cares whose fault it is? He dead, but was right doe...

And I really like the low key insults you've been throwing at me. I'm "not built for it", just because I don't agree with you, and I'm not willing to risk my life for it. I've already said there are rights I'm willing to fight and die for. (Don't forget, I'm a blue blood Virginian. We started a war when we thought our rights were stepped on)

I don't live in fear, either. I'm not going to put myself in that type of situation

[Zaroku]

I've never had any run ins with the law while in Asia. What happens if you don't have ID on you? Maybe they take you in until someone can come and verify who you are?

Yep....one guy who used to work at BofA got taken to a police box, held there, until his wife brought his ID. I guess a guy could get off with a warning, depends on the cops..

When I lost my wallet earlier this year, I carried my passport plus a document from my local police station where I reported my wallet lost.

[travestyny]

More semantics from you. I'm not trying to attach blame, no more than if I said you got your money took by a thief. And if you're dead, who really cares whose fault it is? He dead, but was right doe...

And I really like the low key insults you've been throwing at me. I'm "not built for it", just because I don't agree with you, and I'm not willing to risk my life for it. I've already said there are rights I'm willing to fight and die for. (Don't forget, I'm a blue blood Virginian. We started a war when we thought our rights were stepped on)

I don't live in fear, either. I'm not going to put myself in that type of situation

I've said a number of times it's your prerogative, bro. This conversation could have ended long ago. I feel like I've been saying the same exact thing in different ways for the past 4 posts to you at least. I think we might just be caught in a loop where we both expect the convo to end but we keep responding to each other.

I mean if you want the last word, have at it. I've said everything I have to say about it, and I wasn't insulting you. It's just a difference. He obviously thought standing up for himself in that situation was important. You don't. He's built for it meaning it's part of who he is, obviously.


The most ironic thing about this conversation is that he did show his ID. We are discussing this whole ID thing for no reason. I know your point is about a state issued one, but if he doesn't have one there's no point to discuss it. If the state he's in wants everyone to carry government ID's, I'm sure they'll write it into the laws and a citizen like him who knows his rights will abide. He seemed very on point with what his legal rights are.

Respect.

[1bad65]

I have you on ignore simply because you have me on ignore. That's my policy. I don't ignore anyone for fear of their posts, like you do because yous a bltch. I just put people on ignore because if I can't post in their threads, they can't post in mine.

Why must you lie?

um....You sure about that?

I see you can do something besides cheerlead, finally. That's great. Let's discuss this, because not according to this fox news judicial analyst....

I guess he's stupid, too, huh? What do you say, 1sad? I get the feeling he'd say you're too "stupid" to understand such a simple concept

There you are responding to me, quoting me actually, just 6 days ago.

You e-beef so much you can't even keep track of all your nonsense.

I can't wait for you to get placed on Glove's Ignore List, or to have to duck me in front of him.

You bring nothing to the forum.

You're a cheerleader, son. Remember to stay in your lane and keep those pom poms shaking .

And you talk just like me too!! The exact same nomenclature and pet names, to the letter! How sweet!!


But lets cut to the chase.

Here is my point:

We dont convict people of obstruction of justice without an underlying crime.

And in this case there is no underlying crime.
https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...ostcount=33266

Do you wish to challenge the above point I have made?

Yes or No, please.

[1bad65]

More semantics from you.

Are you surprised????

It's all he does.

He did it to me, before I quickly tired and just ignored him. He's really not too hard to figure out. He just repeats himself over and over and over til the other guy quits. It's not some kind of grand strategy or excellent use of debate technique we're seeing here.

I'm not trying to attach blame, no more than if I said you got your money took by a thief. And if you're dead, who really cares whose fault it is? He dead, but was right doe...

He has to turn everything into an argument, and every argument he 'wins'.

Again, the inevitable outcome is obvious but you keep playing the same game.

Like playing guns with Steve. lol

And I really like the low key insults you've been throwing at me. I'm "not built for it", just because I don't agree with you, and I'm not willing to risk my life for it. I've already said there are rights I'm willing to fight and die for. (Don't forget, I'm a blue blood Virginian. We started a war when we thought our rights were stepped on)

I don't live in fear, either. I'm not going to put myself in that type of situation

Again, I told he does that too.

This is his life:

Mental masturbation - the act of engaging in intelligent and interesting conversation purely for the enjoyment of your own greatness and individuality. Subjects range from obscure lp's to cultural movements in preindustrial societies. Either delivered through grand monlogues or subtle conversation orientation, it links large words and random references resulting in nothing acually being communicated.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...20Masturbation


But should he accept my challenge, I figure you'll be done with him pretty quick.

Once you see, as a neutral observer, the sheer futility of someone else trying to get him to ever concede any point, I think it will be eye-opening.

It can get lost when you're the one engaging him. All that obfuscation and spinning can blind the other guy (as is his goal, actually).

[GGG Gloveking]

I've said a number of times it's your prerogative, bro. This conversation could have ended long ago. I feel like I've been saying the same exact thing in different ways for the past 4 posts to you at least. I think we might just be caught in a loop where we both expect the convo to end but we keep responding to each other.

I mean if you want the last word, have at it. I've said everything I have to say about it, and I wasn't insulting you. It's just a difference. He obviously thought standing up for himself in that situation was important. You don't. He's built for it meaning it's part of who he is, obviously.


The most ironic thing about this conversation is that he did show his ID. We are discussing this whole ID thing for no reason. I know your point is about a state issued one, but if he doesn't have one there's no point to discuss it. If the state he's in wants everyone to carry government ID's, I'm sure they'll write it into the laws and a citizen like him who knows his rights will abide. He seemed very on point with what his legal rights are.

Respect.

More disrespect from you. Just because I don't believe in fighting for this, please, please dont think I'm soft for one fücking minute.

I'm getting pissed off now...

[GGG Gloveking]

Are you surprised????

It's all he does.

He did it to me, before I quickly tired and just ignored him. He's really not too hard to figure out. He just repeats himself over and over and over til the other guy quits. It's not some kind of grand strategy or excellent use of debate technique we're seeing here.



He has to turn everything into an argument, and every argument he 'wins'.

Again, the inevitable outcome is obvious but you keep playing the same game.

Like playing guns with Steve. lol



Again, I told he does that too.

This is his life:

Mental masturbation - the act of engaging in intelligent and interesting conversation purely for the enjoyment of your own greatness and individuality. Subjects range from obscure lp's to cultural movements in preindustrial societies. Either delivered through grand monlogues or subtle conversation orientation, it links large words and random references resulting in nothing acually being communicated.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...20Masturbation


But should he accept my challenge, I figure you'll be done with him pretty quick.

Once you see, as a neutral observer, the sheer futility of someone else trying to get him to ever concede any point, I think it will be eye-opening.

It can get lost when you're the one engaging him. All that obfuscation and spinning can blind the other guy (as is his goal, actually).

I see it, I'm just too stubborn. It is pissing me off, though, the way he keeps calling me soft and heartless. I don't need this sheit in my life. Being pissed at someone I'll never see in life is frustrating. I need to leave this place.

[travestyny]

Why must you lie?

Lie about what? By the way, you suddenly have me off ignore, huh? I'm sure I'll find out by the time I finish reading this drivel what has your panties in a knot.

There you are responding to me, quoting me actually, just 6 days ago.

You do realize that I can still see your messages, right? I'd think you would know that, since you've had me on ignore since the first time I hurt your feelings and yet you talk about me nearly every damn day.

You e-beef so much you can't even keep track of all your nonsense.

You pay far too much attention to me. I don't E-beef. Maybe you're just too sensitive because you have a ******.

I can't wait for you to get placed on Glove's Ignore List, or to have to duck me in front of him.

You can't wait until Glove puts me on ignore???? Whoopty fvvcking doo! Show us what you win?

Me duck you? I guess I should be bragging about how you ducked me in the Thunderdome, right? Right? There is only one of us that has a history of ducking. Don't make me go and fire up old threads, hmmm?

You bring nothing to the forum.

You're clearly projecting. If nothing else, I bring enough to turn you into a cheerleading bltch, right?

And you talk just like me too!! The exact same nomenclature and pet names, to the letter! How sweet!!

What the actual fvvck???? You are getting creepy as fvvck, dude. Your obsession with me is seeming realy h@mo right now. Sort your life out.

But lets cut to the chase.

Here is my point:

We dont convict people of obstruction of justice without an underlying crime.

And in this case there is no underlying crime.
https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...ostcount=33266

Do you wish to challenge the above point I have made?

Yes or No, please.

Sure. Have at it.

BAIER: Right, even though there is no underlying indictment on the conspiracy.

NAPOLITANO: The underlying indictment theory is not even embraced by the present DOJ.

BAIER: I understand that you could go forward with the crime, but you think a prosecutor would actually do that?

NAPOLITANO: Well, I don't know if a prosecutor would but under the law there is enough for a prosecutor to do so. And as far as this OLC, Office of Legal Counsel, opinion, it's an advisory opinion. It was issued in October of 2000. Fourty-five days later, the Justice Department prosecuted of the United States, Bill Clinton, for obstruction of justice and fourty-five days after that he pled guilty to a felony while still in office. So it is clear that this opinion is not a bar to prosecute the president.

And here's a whole damn article about it.

Barr is wrong: Obstruction of justice doesn’t require another underlying crime

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...=.39c3c85afcc2

Sorry, you lose. Now tell me what I win.