Tigerpaw
-
Posts
1,296 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Events
Everything posted by Tigerpaw
-
Exactly. Open carry(by people not looking for trouble) happens all the time. As it should.
-
That's exactly what a paranoid person would say. Statistically, how many times are rights violated in the total number of police interactions.
-
I went that silly, because that's how this guy sounds to me. Why wouldn't he cooperate.
-
It's called paranoia.
-
It is unlikely. You're right. Just like LEGAL OC would be unlikely at the time/location this clown did. It looked suspicious and the police tried to get to the bottom of it. He would not cooperate, because he is a tool.
-
If you left the house with the recording device on/ready and immediately ask for $3.6 million...yes
-
I'm going to have a friend punch/cut/bloody me up really good. Grab my gun. Go to a gas station in the ghetto. When the police ask me to stop, I will recite my name,birthdate, and SSN, turn around and limp to my car and drive off. That's all legal right? and pretty smart too.
-
I love that self-centered attitude:rolleyes:
-
Does he deserve $3.6 million dollars, after purposely starting this?
-
Like not cooperating with a weapon in a high crime situation?
-
...and I repeat...
-
The Police had no idea who he was/what he was doing. He could've just murdered a bunch of people. Why not ask a few questions?
-
Does he deserve $3.6 million?
-
So criminals should never admit to having ID, and they would never be arrested.
-
So, with that logic, police can only investigate crimes they have witnessed first hand?
-
no. Concerned call about a gun in a high crime neighborhood/time/location = some officers investigating. He purposely hindered that investigation. Charges were dropped. He wants $3.6M.
-
Neither of us knows the protocol for police dispatch.
-
I still stand by all those quotes.
-
I don't know if that is the norm.
-
4DAIVI PAI2K5, scottie.harris, Gunner75, How would you have responded to the scene(as a police officer)?
-
It is required to drive.
-
Which statement would that be? This guy is trying to fight for his rights, in all the wrong ways.
-
So his intent was to deceive the police.
-
It would be reasonable to assume he drove his vehicle there. Why would a law abiding citizen not have access to their ID if they just drove to a gas station?
-
No one is driving when they are detained.
