#101 2009-04-13 13:35:47
GooberMcNutly wrote:
But don't the cops realize that the only way to really get their jobs done well is to respect the freedoms of the people they are investigating?
That would make a fine bumper-sticker Goober. Wonderful sentiment with no real nuts-and-bolts definition.
GooberMcNutly wrote:
You want to know why everyone hates the cops?
Err... no. Everyone doesn't hate the cops. A whole LOT of people don't hate the cops. Certainly, criminals hate the cops. Innocent people who refuse to be cooperative and get further inconvenienced for their refusal to cooperate certainly seem to hate the cops. But believe it or not, if you took a survey of Americans asking everyone "Do you hate the cops?" I'm willing to bet a large majority would say they didn't. Now, if the question was asked of the denizens of High-Street you'd no doubt get a different negative response rate.
GooberMcNutly wrote:
It's because you know that the longer you talk to a cop, the better a chance that you will become a guilty party about something.
Spoken like a true paranoid. Maybe you "know" that but I've talked to cops plenty of times. I've been out walking late at night and had a cop stop and ask me questions about what I was doing. I've been pulled over lots of times by cops. In none of those occasions was I ever afraid that answering questions would get me busted for something I was innocent of. How many crimes have you been arrested for that you didn't commit just because you made the mistake of talking to the cops longer than you should have?
GooberMcNutly wrote:
If a cop has a "suspicion" that I am doing something wrong, that's his business. But not mine.
Well then, clearly you are under no obligation to pull over when those lights go on behind you, right? I mean, if you are weaving a bit in your lane the cop should have to get a warrant from a judge before trying to pull you over, right?
GooberMcNutly wrote:
When he has concrete proof, he can at least go through the motions and get some judge to rubberstamp a warrant. Then we will talk. Until that point, you go about your business and Ill go about mine.
You are breathtakingly clueless. I hope you are never the victim of a crime. If the cops can't question a single suspect until they have "concrete proof" that they did it then don't expect an arrest any time in the future.
Offline
#102 2009-04-13 13:46:02
Annecdotal as it may be, but there seems to be a strong connection between the anti-cop attitude and then continued use of marijuana past the teenaged years.
Offline
#103 2009-04-13 14:03:35
ptah13 wrote:
I still don't get how "carrying cash" is suspicious.
I think you do know why traveling large quantities of cash is suspicious. You allude to it below.
ptah13 wrote:
Shit, the guy I went out with the last time I went clubbing asked me, "two stacks or 3". So, yeah, he was walking around with 3 grand on him, just to go out on the town.
I gotta ask: what the hell did he need $3k on him for just to go out on the town?
ptah13 wrote:
Based on the above logic, he is majorly suspicious of some crime, because he has some cash on him.
I'm not a cop but I at least have some clue of how a cop's suspicion might work. You make the straw-man argument of treating each isolated element as if it alone has to have an overwhelming suspicious nature to it for a person to be "suspicious". Most of the time it's probably a combination of things that makes a cop suspicious of someone. Hell, a cop has no way of even knowing you are carrying a large sum of money on you most of the time. It isn't a factor until the cop has already had one or more flags go up. For the bozo in the YouTube clip, it could have been several things. If a guy is sweating heavily in a well ventilated inspection area or just plain "looks nervous" (eyes darting around with a nervous look on his face) that sets off one flag. It proves nothing but it's the first thing that might tip off a cop that something's up. So, a guy looks nervous which prompts the cop to ask him a few questions to see how he responds: "Why are you traveling today?" If the response is evasive (how about "Am I legally required to answer that question?") that makes him a bit more suspicious. He then sees that the guy has over $4,700 in cash in his carry-on. The cop knows that is uncommon behavior for the typical traveler (most of us are smart enough not to risk carrying that kind of scratch on us) and that criminals usually do business in cash - especially drug smugglers. "Sir, would you mind stepping out of line so we can ask you some more questions?" Now the guy gets REAL agitated insisting that "he has his rights" and that they have no right to ask him these questions! Is he proven guilty at that point? No, but he's acting the same way a lot of dumb criminals might act. So, yeah, there's suspicion. It's the cops' job to act on that suspicion. The guy in the video was not arrested. He didn't miss his flight. And if he had actually been a decent guy and helped the police do their job rather than refusing to cooperate he would have been on his way sooner (unless you actually buy Goober's theory that answering questions would have made it more likely he would have been arrested for a crime he didn't commit).
ptah13 wrote:
Just because "criminals usually deal in cash" doesn't equate to "anyone who has cash is a criminal".
Who said it does? There's a difference between behavior that is suspicious (sometimes only mildly suspicious and sometimes highly suspicious) and hard & fast evidence of guilt. And again, it's usually a combination of things that add up to greater suspicion. Most innocent and reasonable people cooperate. Refusing to cooperate just make you look more likely to be guilty. No, it doesn't PROVE you are guilty. Nobody said it did (not me, not the cops in the example).
ptah13 wrote:
Yep, it's called "fucked up cop logic" and as long as I'm breathing, I'll make life as difficult as I can for those fuckers when it comes to them investigating victimless crimes. If my refusing to answer some questions about cash causes them to miss the next guy that has a joint on him, I consider that a worthy cause!
And HERE is the truth behind so much of the attitude here. You think cops should only enforce the laws that you personally approve of. They are assholes and should be fucked with for doing their job. I can understand your sentiment. If making your life more difficult by making the cops' job more difficult is a price you are willing to pay, then don't complain when cops make your life difficult.
ptah13 wrote:
I guess we are simply on different sides. I'm on the side of liberty and freedom while your on the side that is constantly working us towards a police state (hell, we are already there, who am I kidding?).
A more reasonable way of phrasing it would be "Ptah thinks that he's siding with liberty and freedom while Zookeeper sides with law and order". There's always a tension between the two. Total and complete freedom leads to chaos. Total and complete security leads to a police state. I want neither. If narcotics were legalized tomorrow it wouldn't ruin my day. I wouldn't be dancing in the streets about it like most here but neither would I be crying over it.
Offline
#104 2009-04-13 20:35:08
I know where you're coming from Zookeep, but my main problem is with the professionality of these particular cops... As an habitual speeder I get to meet up with quite a few State Troopers and there is truly a difference between them. I've noticed that the older State Troopers tend to be professional and only ask questions pertaining to both their and my immediate safety. The younger State Troopers are a different story though, they tend to be full of cum and consider everyone to be guilty of something. After I've dealt with a professional law enforcement officer I leave with the understanding that they were just doing their job. When I'm done dealing with an unprofessional one I feel as if I've been molested by them. I'm a tax paying citizen and I shouldn't have to put up with that bullshit, pull me over, write me a ticket for what I've done and don't treat me like a criminal, treat me like a citizen. The officers that were recorded were blatantly unprofessional and should no longer be employed in law enforcement. If you're law enforcement and you won't allow a citizen to practice their legal rights then you're the scum of the earth....
Last edited by Dirckman (2009-04-13 20:35:29)
Offline
#105 2009-04-13 20:49:30
Dirck, your punctuation has improved!
Offline
#106 2009-04-13 21:00:19
Dmtdust wrote:
Dirck, your punctuation has improved!
I know how to do it right, it's just that I don't always feel like it.
Offline
#107 2009-04-13 21:17:00
Dirckman wrote:
Dmtdust wrote:
Dirck, your punctuation has improved!
I know how to do it right, it's just that I don't always feel like it.
I figured.
Offline
#108 2009-04-14 07:20:35
Zookeeper wrote:
ptah13 wrote:
I still don't get how "carrying cash" is suspicious.
I think you do know why traveling large quantities of cash is suspicious. You allude to it below.
ptah13 wrote:
Shit, the guy I went out with the last time I went clubbing asked me, "two stacks or 3". So, yeah, he was walking around with 3 grand on him, just to go out on the town.
I gotta ask: what the hell did he need $3k on him for just to go out on the town?
Where do I allude to "carrying cash is suspicious"?
WTF? Are you imagining things, now?
Your logic reminds me of my mom's logic. "Well, if you have nothing to hide why would you care if the cops tapped your phone (or randomly searched your house". or "if you aren't breaking any laws then you shouldn't care if the police want to search your home".
This is such great logic. "If you don't agree with whatever the police want to do, then you are acting suspicious".
First, I know several of people who travel and take large sums of cash on them under the logic "what if something screwed up happens to my cards while I'm away". Nothing at all suspicious about that. Those same people would take issue with having to "explain themselves" to the police.
I'm glad you so eagerly want to toss away all our rights, and you think everyone thinks like you. I still say you must have some police folk in your immediate family, because I don't know of anyone (aside from my mom) who shares your logic on these issues.
As far as the "why would someone need 2k when going out on the town". Hmm, well one time when we went out of the town we ended up driving 100 miles to a riverboat casino. More recently, the guy's bar bill ended up being $1540 (he purchased several expensive bottles sent to a table of of women nearby) and then we got a suite at a local 5-star hotel (also, there was breakfast for 8 the next morning). Thank god he took over 3 stacks that night.
idiot... I'm sure you figured there was "narcotics" buying the next day...
You can always tell a cop or a friend of a non-dirty cop by the way they think that all illegal drugs are "narcotics". You do realize that drugs like LSD, Cocaine, etc... are NOT narcotics, right? I love the, "if narcotics were legal tomorrow"... I'm thinking, "yep, if he isn't a cop, his brother, sister, wife or parent is".
Offline
#109 2009-04-14 12:35:25
ptah13 wrote:
Your logic reminds me of my mom's logic. "Well, if you have nothing to hide why would you care if the cops tapped your phone (or randomly searched your house". or "if you aren't breaking any laws then you shouldn't care if the police want to search your home".
The cops should have cameras installed in every toilet in every home in America. Look, when the cops kick down a drug dealer's door on a no-knock warrant, what's the first thing the dirty terrorist does? That's right, he flushes his stash down the toilet.
If you're not doing anything wrong, then there's no reason you shouldn't want the cops to have a toilet camera in your house. It has to be down in the toilet so it can make out the person's face when they're flushing their dirty al-qaeda-funding drugs.
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
Offline
#110 2009-04-14 13:32:38
Offline
#111 2009-04-14 13:55:02
orangeplus wrote:
This thread was calling out for something, but I couldn't quite place my finger on what was missing.
Offline
#112 2009-04-14 14:09:08
Dirckman wrote:
The officers that were recorded were blatantly unprofessional and should no longer be employed in law enforcement. If you're law enforcement and you won't allow a citizen to practice their legal rights then you're the scum of the earth....
That's easy to say without hearing anything that lead up to the start of the recording. Maybe they were and maybe they weren't. If by "blatantly unprofessional" you mean one got annoyed and used a curse word, I find it down right hilarious that people here would whine about that. Keep in mind that while he was questioned, he was not "prevented from practicing his legal rights". He wasn't arrested. He had nothing confiscated. He didn't miss his flight. And if he hadn't been an asshole in the first place and actually considered it his responsibility to help the police rather than to hinder them he probably would have been on his way long before the recording started.
Last edited by Zookeeper (2009-04-14 14:10:21)
Offline
#113 2009-04-14 14:12:49
I have to agree with Ptah. Unless you are doing something illegal, the cops don't have a right to just hassle you for shits and giggles. It's not like $3000 is a large sum of money.
Offline
#114 2009-04-14 15:00:49
ptah13 wrote:
Zookeeper wrote:
ptah13 wrote:
I still don't get how "carrying cash" is suspicious.
I think you do know why traveling large quantities of cash is suspicious. You allude to it below.
ptah13 wrote:
Shit, the guy I went out with the last time I went clubbing asked me, "two stacks or 3". So, yeah, he was walking around with 3 grand on him, just to go out on the town.
I gotta ask: what the hell did he need $3k on him for just to go out on the town?
Where do I allude to "carrying cash is suspicious"? WTF? Are you imagining things, now?
You said "Just because 'criminals usually deal in cash' doesn't equate to 'anyone who has cash is a criminal'" While it doesn't equate to the absolute statement you made ("anyone who has cash is a criminal") it is suspicious. In this context "suspicious" can be regarded to indicate something that is both out of the ordinary and which is consistent with criminal behavior. No, "suspicion" doesn't mean guilty. It is simply reason to ask questions. That's what cops do. If you refuse to answer a reasonable question it makes you look even more suspicious. That doesn't mean you are necessarily guilty of anything. But, as I said before, police don't get a lot of people who walk up to them and report their crimes. They actually have to ask questions when they see something that suggests someone may be up to something illegal. Cooperating with them when they do this not only helps them do their job but also gets you on your way much faster than being difficult.
ptah13 wrote:
Your logic reminds me of my mom's logic. "Well, if you have nothing to hide why would you care if the cops tapped your phone (or randomly searched your house". or "if you aren't breaking any laws then you shouldn't care if the police want to search your home".
Your mom was an idiot if she believed the police should be able to search your home without a warrant. Sorry if it reminds you that your mom says idiotic things. That isn't what I was saying. But if you really want to twist logic, then you must be saying that you shouldn't need to pull over if you aren't speeding - even when the cop turns on his lights and signals you to pull over. Pushing any principal beyond a reasonable measure makes it seem absurd.
ptah13 wrote:
This is such great logic. "If you don't agree with whatever the police want to do, then you are acting suspicious".
If you can show me one instance where I said "whatever the police want to do" I'll concede the point. Good luck searching.
ptah13 wrote:
First, I know several of people who travel and take large sums of cash on them under the logic "what if something screwed up happens to my cards while I'm away". Nothing at all suspicious about that. Those same people would take issue with having to "explain themselves" to the police.
First of all, your friends are idiots. If you are traveling and need to access lots of money get travelers' checks.
Sorry, but you yourself said "criminals usually deal in cash". Drug smugglers typically have very large sums of cash (larger than the typical traveler). I know you want to take the word "suspicious" as something like being covered with blood but it really can be subtle than that. Travelling with large sums of cash (define "large" here as more than most travelers would want to risk losing to a pick-pocket; say, in the thousands) is consistent with the behavior of criminals. It's not illegal but it is enough to raise an eyebrow at customs or airport security - prompting a question. Given that most people have no problem answering such a question when asked by a customs agent or airport security cop, you come across as suspicious when you refuse to answer. Sorry ptah, but that's the way the world works. If you were on the other side of the badge you would find it suspicious as well - especially after you had arrested several guilty parties that behaved the same way.
ptah13 wrote:
I'm glad you so eagerly want to toss away all our rights
Which rights have I proven eager to "toss away"? Which right was the man in question deprived of? Was he arrested? Was his money confiscated? Was he prevented from making his flight?
ptah13 wrote:
, and you think everyone thinks like you.
Go back and quote where I said "everyone" thinks like me. Was it where I said
believed that a large majority of Americans don't actually hate the cops? Or was it where I generalized about how "most" people behave? Please, tell me where I said everyone agrees with me.
ptah13 wrote:
I still say you must have some police folk in your immediate family, because I don't know of anyone.
Nope, no police folk in my immediate or (to my knowledge) extended family. No friends who are cops either. Your failure to be able to conceive of someone who has no personal ties to the police yet holds views similar to mine only shows how incredibly out of touch you are with reality. I have no problem recognizing that there are plenty of people who disagree with me. Too bad you are too narrow-minded to do the same.
ptah13 wrote:
As far as the "why would someone need 2k when going out on the town".
The figure was $3,000 but why start worrying about trying to be accurate at this point, right?
ptah13 wrote:
Hmm, well one time when we went out of the town we ended up driving 100 miles to a riverboat casino. More recently, the guy's bar bill ended up being $1540 (he purchased several expensive bottles sent to a table of of women nearby) and then we got a suite at a local 5-star hotel (also, there was breakfast for 8 the next morning). Thank god he took over 3 stacks that night.
Well, it may be that I'm just naive but I would have thought that running up a $1,500 bar tab in one sitting pretty uncommon. Paying it with cash rather than a credit card strikes me as rather uncommon as well. How many times have you seen it done? I would maintain that this was out of the ordinary - that is, most people don't spend that much cash (greenbacks, not plastic) when they hit the town. I'd even go so far as to suggest that less than one in 100 people "hit the town" carry $3,000 with them. I had to ask because it was such an odd case.
ptah13 wrote:
idiot...
Golly, pulling out the big guns now, huh?
ptah13 wrote:
I'm sure you figured there was "narcotics" buying the next day...
Actually, I figured that drugs figured into the story someplace - that day, the next day, whatever. You say there were no drugs and I'll believe you and won't call you a liar. Why, I won't even call you an idiot.
ptah13 wrote:
You can always tell a cop or a friend of a non-dirty cop...
Seems you can't if you are saying I'm a cop or a friend of a non-dirty cop
ptah13 wrote:
...by the way they think that all illegal drugs are "narcotics". You do realize that drugs like LSD, Cocaine, etc... are NOT narcotics, right?
I confess to lacking your degree of personal knowledge regarding illicit drugs. I'm sure there is tons you could teach me.
ptah13 wrote:
I love the, "if narcotics were legal tomorrow"...
Everybody hold your breath! Ptah's going to bring the hammer down on me big-time here!
ptah13 wrote:
I'm thinking, "yep, if he isn't a cop, his brother, sister, wife or parent is".
How disappointing. This is your money shot? Sorry but honest: I am not related to nor do I have any friends who are cops. You sure live in a tiny world.
Offline
#115 2009-04-14 15:04:46
jesusluvspegging wrote:
ptah13 wrote:
Your logic reminds me of my mom's logic. "Well, if you have nothing to hide why would you care if the cops tapped your phone (or randomly searched your house". or "if you aren't breaking any laws then you shouldn't care if the police want to search your home".
The cops should have cameras installed in every toilet in every home in America. Look, when the cops kick down a drug dealer's door on a no-knock warrant, what's the first thing the dirty terrorist does? That's right, he flushes his stash down the toilet.
Actually, I believe they usually turn off the water before they break down the door. I'm not sure how this works though since most toilets have one flush left in them when the water is turned off. Does a dealer usually need more than one flush to dispose of all the evidence (I just know ptah is going to nail me for my unforgivable ignorance on this)?
Offline
#116 2009-04-14 15:07:23
headkicker_girl wrote:
I have to agree with Ptah. Unless you are doing something illegal, the cops don't have a right to just hassle you for shits and giggles. It's not like $3000 is a large sum of money.
And to think, you were PM-ing people urging us not to reply to ptah's posts and now here you are agreeing with him...
Offline
#117 2009-04-14 15:13:29
Zookeeper wrote:
headkicker_girl wrote:
I have to agree with Ptah. Unless you are doing something illegal, the cops don't have a right to just hassle you for shits and giggles. It's not like $3000 is a large sum of money.
And to think, you were PM-ing people urging us not to reply to ptah's posts and now here you are agreeing with him...
Get with the program. The rules of engagement on high street change from minute to minute. You've been around long enough to know that.
Offline
#118 2009-04-14 16:26:07
headkicker_girl wrote:
Zookeeper wrote:
headkicker_girl wrote:
I have to agree with Ptah. Unless you are doing something illegal, the cops don't have a right to just hassle you for shits and giggles. It's not like $3000 is a large sum of money.
And to think, you were PM-ing people urging us not to reply to ptah's posts and now here you are agreeing with him...
Get with the program. The rules of engagement on high street change from minute to minute. You've been around long enough to know that.
Indeed. I've been around so long I am getting forgetful in my old age.
I wonder who here has been around the longest (counting Cruel.com of course)...
Offline
#119 2009-04-14 16:39:36
Excellent question Zookmeister.
D
Offline
#120 2009-04-14 16:40:15
Zookeeper wrote:
headkicker_girl wrote:
Zookeeper wrote:
And to think, you were PM-ing people urging us not to reply to ptah's posts and now here you are agreeing with him...Get with the program. The rules of engagement on high street change from minute to minute. You've been around long enough to know that.
Indeed. I've been around so long I am getting forgetful in my old age.
I wonder who here has been around the longest (counting Cruel.com of course)...
Who cares?
Offline
#121 2009-04-14 16:52:38
Zookmeister do.
Offline
#122 2009-04-14 17:00:59
headkicker_girl wrote:
Zookeeper wrote:
headkicker_girl wrote:
Get with the program. The rules of engagement on high street change from minute to minute. You've been around long enough to know that.
Indeed. I've been around so long I am getting forgetful in my old age.
I wonder who here has been around the longest (counting Cruel.com of course)...Who cares?
Who cares whether or not you care?
Last edited by Zookeeper (2009-04-14 17:01:15)
Offline
#123 2009-04-14 17:04:12
Zookeeper wrote:
headkicker_girl wrote:
Zookeeper wrote:
Indeed. I've been around so long I am getting forgetful in my old age.
I wonder who here has been around the longest (counting Cruel.com of course)...Who cares?
Who cares whether or not you care?
I would hope no one cares about whether or not I care.
Offline
#124 2009-04-14 17:13:41
I myself like the history of social systems. Cruel - HighStreet certainly has a social system, and a sense of continuity.
Offline
#125 2009-04-14 18:02:12
Dmtdust wrote:
I myself like the history of social systems. Cruel - HighStreet certainly has a social system, and a sense of continuity.
Ah, but it's much more fun to poke at old man Zookie.
"Hey, you kids, get off my damn lawn!"
Offline
#126 2009-04-14 18:06:02
headkicker_girl wrote:
Dmtdust wrote:
I myself like the history of social systems. Cruel - HighStreet certainly has a social system, and a sense of continuity.
Ah, but it's much more fun to poke at old man Zookie.
HK, you know I can't get enough of your chocolate love!
headkicker_girl wrote:
"Hey, you kids, get off my damn lawn!"
I'll have you know I happen to have one fine kick-ass lawn.
Last edited by Zookeeper (2009-04-14 18:14:44)
Offline
#127 2009-04-14 18:13:49
Dmtdust wrote:
I myself like the history of social systems. Cruel - HighStreet certainly has a social system, and a sense of continuity.
Believe it or not, I still have some of the raw data from when I used to keep the stats on Cruel.com. I never visited the Yahoo group but I do remember when the member board first went up on Cruel. The first unique 100 posters were as follows:
rcade
Desdinov
Chad Miller
Smittylicious
david
Oncey
Samizdata
Christine Spear - Trasko
greatganon
unclemeat76
Gears
moonrpie
jeckcrow
mikew
bilcorry
Rob Williams
Sandy913
no
skeleton_jack_pk
yo mama
cat_taliban
Shaggy
andruze
Kitt
rentavet
Shotgun Mosquito
kill whitey
kade
Kilgore Trout
Gar
Jim
Graham
thaumatin
doctor_woo
Langdon Willoughby
bi11i
Bitchelicious
ter
emcdoc
shit_kat
Tripp Southern
poopkorn
MRMEAN
QbertP
swell
Sean McNerney
HoSeHeaD
saraphin
StephenFalken
Chuck Hardin
dan
Sammy
The Author
mach501blues
TimeDevourer
Dragon Food
Ed Barbar
upright
Jim Panasay
Randy C Wright
metabrws
Mike
crni
VC
Four
bob
anna
scott
Mr. X the Russian Spy
Spivey
Imperial D
Cumulo Pimpus
Wallace Judd
Chunderton
dbaer
Greg
JOC
Greggen
Raoul
AT
Speedy
Breen the Lithe
Tangerine
Toni Riss
Rexio
bigbird
Drake
Lilith
adam
Usagi
astro
Brent Schiver
Leonie
agirl
john
Christal
dw
Eggs Ackley
SpaceMonkey
b bridges
I believe Roger That (Smitty) - number4 - qualifies as the earliest posting member of what would become High-Street "back in the day". Poopkorn (peco or ptah?) was #42. And we all know the significance of that number.
I was visiting Cruel.com for at least a couple years before there was a message board but I didn't post for a while even after the board was up. I show up in the list in position 557 (three after Joyful Girl). Horse showed up at 757 (while I was out of town).
Offline
#128 2009-04-14 18:33:06
I posted once (I think?) to the cruel board, but I've been going to the site since... sometime in '98 or early '99 I guess?
Offline
#129 2009-04-14 19:03:01
jesusluvspegging wrote:
I posted once (I think?) to the cruel board, but I've been going to the site since... sometime in '98 or early '99 I guess?
Me too...I lurked for a long time before I posted. Back in '98 when I started reading cruel I was trolling on a local board honing my chops.
Offline
#130 2009-04-14 21:57:18
And to think I wasn't even born yet.
Offline
#131 2009-04-14 22:12:37
icangetyouatoe wrote:
And to think I wasn't even born yet.
You're such a liar. You were born in what, '91?
Offline
#132 2009-04-14 22:36:53
icangetyouatoe wrote:
And to think I wasn't even born yet.
Damn rug-rats! Walking on my grass and fucking in my pool...
Offline
#133 2009-04-15 12:25:45
Zookeeper wrote:
Stupid rant
Ok, by your logic, since drug dealers deal in cash = anyone dealing in cash is a potential drug dealer... then can we assume that since most drug dealers wear clothing, that means if you are wearing clothing you are a "suspicious character" and deserve to be given the 3rd degree by the gestapo?
You post read as if you really believe that, for the most part, society agrees with your take on this matter. The reason I kept questioning if you had cops (or corrections officers) as friends or family is that, aside from my mom, I don't know anyone who agrees with your point of view.
Not that it doesn't mean you aren't entitled to have said point of view, just that, aside from cops, corrections officers, their friends and family, and my mom, you seem to be the only other person that shares this view. Especially around here.
Listen, you can call people "idiots" all you want for carrying cash on them, but I think it is a more common practice than you realize. Just because not everyone acts like you doesn't make them "suspicious" and in need of "questioning" by the authorities.
Yep, you'd do real well in a police state, Zook. You already have the correct mindset for it. I'm sorry that you'll never get me, or most people for that matter, to agree that cops have the right to give you the 3rd degree without having cause to do so. Having "money" doesn't mean you are a criminal.
People like you make me understand how the common German got on board with the whole Nazi thing. Just a bunch of Zooks... lol
Offline
#134 2009-04-15 12:27:59
Zookeeper wrote:
jesusluvspegging wrote:
ptah13 wrote:
Your logic reminds me of my mom's logic. "Well, if you have nothing to hide why would you care if the cops tapped your phone (or randomly searched your house". or "if you aren't breaking any laws then you shouldn't care if the police want to search your home".
The cops should have cameras installed in every toilet in every home in America. Look, when the cops kick down a drug dealer's door on a no-knock warrant, what's the first thing the dirty terrorist does? That's right, he flushes his stash down the toilet.
Actually, I believe they usually turn off the water before they break down the door. I'm not sure how this works though since most toilets have one flush left in them when the water is turned off. Does a dealer usually need more than one flush to dispose of all the evidence (I just know ptah is going to nail me for my unforgivable ignorance on this)?
Sorry, I'm not a drug dealer.
Also, you watch too much tv. I've never heard of this "turning off the water" crap in my life.
Get off the CSI and get a life.
Offline
#135 2009-04-15 12:30:00
headkicker_girl wrote:
Zookeeper wrote:
headkicker_girl wrote:
I have to agree with Ptah. Unless you are doing something illegal, the cops don't have a right to just hassle you for shits and giggles. It's not like $3000 is a large sum of money.
And to think, you were PM-ing people urging us not to reply to ptah's posts and now here you are agreeing with him...
Get with the program. The rules of engagement on high street change from minute to minute. You've been around long enough to know that.
That's right.
I love HKG now.
Where were you when the detente was declared? Same goes with Tojo. Hell, I'd walk through fire for Tojo!!!
We are all home-skillets now. Get with the fucking program, Zook.
edit: and Zook, nobody likes a snitch...
Last edited by ptah13 (2009-04-15 12:35:00)
Offline
#136 2009-04-15 12:34:33
Zookeeper wrote:
headkicker_girl wrote:
Dmtdust wrote:
I myself like the history of social systems. Cruel - HighStreet certainly has a social system, and a sense of continuity.
Ah, but it's much more fun to poke at old man Zookie.
HK, you know I can't get enough of your chocolate love!
headkicker_girl wrote:
"Hey, you kids, get off my damn lawn!"
I'll have you know I happen to have one fine kick-ass lawn.
I've recently moved to somewhere with the shittiest of all lawns.
I know "the secret" though.
By the end of summer, I'll have a golf course.
Offline
#137 2009-04-15 12:53:00
I've come to realize that, after being away for a day, we dropped the vitriol and got on a much nicer subject, "Who has the Cruel Street Cred".
First, I apologize to Zook. I don't really think, nor have I ever thought, you are an idiot.
Hell, my mom has a genius IQ, is one of the most well-read people on earth and she comes up with some nutty logic (in my OPINION). I know that differences of opinion don't equate to smarts. I'm sorry if I am so crass when I get "excitable" about something (like cops, and how I can't stand most of them).
Second, I can't claim a lot of Cruel Cred. I don't think I showed up till 1999 or 2000... probably 2000. I went once or twice, then the whole Bonsai Kitty thing came about and I didn't even know that BK was Cruel Site of the Day (I came across it via a different road). I can say I got in on the BK thing from the ground level. I showed up just a few weeks after the yahoo board was established and I brought a horde of smart folk with me (like Glass and his folk) to unleash a world of abuse on the cat-freaks.
After a few months at the yahoo BK board, I realized that most of the folks over there hung out at the Cruel thing and that is when I started posting. It is ironic that I had an altar to RCade, even before ever hanging out at Cruel (due to his BK time).
Anyway, Peco is not Poopkorn, I am the artist formerly known as Poopkorn. Peco and I aren't the same (but he's cool as hell). I went by about 6-7 different names, at Cruel, most for a very short time as a joke. Ptah is my oldest id, though. It is my very first yahoo id. For years I didn't own a PC and then finally purchased one in 1996 or so (my last computer before my 96' Gateway was a commodore SX64, I kid you not... leave me alone, I was BUSY!!!). Hey, now I build my own... go figure.
So, with Ptah you get my original id.
Again, I would like to apologize to Zook for my name calling and what-not. You know I don't think you are an idiot.
Also, I'm not a drug dealer nor do I hang out with drug dealers. Yeah, I use to run hoes back and forth from Indy to Chicago but that was just for a short time and I count that as a reflexive action after the breakdown of my relationship with all that was callipygian......
Which reminds me, I just got back from Chicago, about a week ago. I hadn't been in 6 years (ok I went to a concert at the Theater about 4 years ago, but didn't stick around). I use to go all the time (like at least once a month). I didn't realize how bad I missed the food and my peoples.
I walked everywhere and still gained weight. Good food...
Offline
#138 2009-04-15 16:52:10
ptah13 wrote:
Zookeeper wrote:
(point-by-point refutation of ptah's dismembered attempts at rational dialog)
(ptah's moronic reply to above)
ptah13, what really makes me laugh is you are incapable of grasping how a combination of factors can add up to "suspicion" yet you stated multiple times your hard and fast certainty that I'm either a cop, related to one or close friends with one - even after being assured I'm not. I'll say this much, I wouldn't want you wearing a shield.
Last edited by Zookeeper (2009-04-15 16:53:59)
Offline
#139 2009-04-15 17:01:47
ptah13 wrote:
Zookeeper wrote:
jesusluvspegging wrote:
The cops should have cameras installed in every toilet in every home in America. Look, when the cops kick down a drug dealer's door on a no-knock warrant, what's the first thing the dirty terrorist does? That's right, he flushes his stash down the toilet.
Actually, I believe they usually turn off the water before they break down the door. I'm not sure how this works though since most toilets have one flush left in them when the water is turned off. Does a dealer usually need more than one flush to dispose of all the evidence (I just know ptah is going to nail me for my unforgivable ignorance on this)?
Sorry, I'm not a drug dealer.
I am absolutely certain that either you are a drug dealer or you are related to one or are friends with one. Everything you say proves it beyond contestation. Oh, and you think everyone agrees with you.
ptah13 wrote:
Also, you watch too much tv. I've never heard of this "turning off the water" crap in my life.
Happened in my neighborhood years ago. The police turned off the water to a four-plex right before they raided one of the units for drugs (wait, no, narcotics). So, no. I didn't get that from CSI.
Clearly no conclusion will ever escape your grasp given the speed with which you jump to them. They just never have a chance...
Offline
#140 2009-04-15 17:06:58
ptah13 wrote:
Again, I would like to apologize to Zook for my name calling and what-not.
And I know you will forgive me for the above post since I posted them before reading this last one.
ptah13 wrote:
You know I don't think you are an idiot.
But nothing will ever sway you from the belief that I'm either related to a cop or have friends who are cops. That's an albatross I'll have to wear around my neck for the rest of my time here...
Offline
#141 2009-04-15 17:46:17
Offline
#142 2009-04-15 19:10:28
I can't find the sissy slap fight video. The one in black and white, good cinematography, shot on some kind of tropical island?
Last edited by jesusluvspegging (2009-04-15 19:12:59)
Offline
#143 2009-04-15 22:43:02
I've managed to keep this thread in the "topics with the most posts" top 3 for almost a whole week.
I RULE! (pumps fist ala American Beauty)
Offline
#144 2009-04-16 17:15:43
orangeplus wrote:
Funny, I was thinking of that very vid myself - no lie.
Offline
#145 2009-04-16 17:50:07
Offline
#146 2009-04-16 18:04:39
Man... Robert Downey Jr is blacker than our president!
Offline
#147 2009-04-16 22:12:45
ptah13 wrote:
Man... Robert Downey Jr is blacker than our president!
So, what are you saying? That O'Bama is half white but full retard?
Offline
#148 2009-04-17 01:02:54
Zookeeper wrote:
ptah13 wrote:
Man... Robert Downey Jr is blacker than our president!
So, what are you saying? That O'Bama is half white but full retard?
hehehe
You cops crack me up.
Offline
#149 2009-04-17 03:25:31
ptah13 wrote:
hehehe
You cops crack me up.
See, that's how rumors get started. Just be-cause Zookie is pro-fascism doesn't mean that he's necessarily a cop.
Offline
#150 2009-04-17 08:07:49
Decadence wrote:
See, that's how rumors get started. Just be-cause Zookie is pro-fascism doesn't mean that he's necessarily a cop.
Yeah, he's just politically a 'bottom.'
Offline
