Geeto67

The engraving that read "you're fucked" on the side of his personal AR15. Is that the engraving you are referencing? The one that was in the rifle when the Mesa police approved the weapon for duty? The one that I'm sure all his buddies in the pct thought was funny until the moment where he actually murders someone? The one that the prosecutors office and the victims attorney is going to use against him in court to show a callous disregard for human life? Just checking. They needed to fire him so he could be charged without the Mesa pd having to take responsibility once the murder charge hit and to give him a fighting chance in court. But if you think it is unrelated, you are just kidding yourself.

he ain't a cop no more. And "death by cop" is usually in reference to "suicide by cop" which this was not.

touche' but if they aren't reading it anyway why are they bitching about it? do they want to read it but can't because their attention span doesn't let them? this place is weird sometimes.

Not Death by cop, just straight murder. Don't make is sound more confusing.

I know how smart I am clay, I just expect more of others. LoL. seriously though I don't have the time for that. Also it isn't nearly as fun. the american way....closed-mindedness through censorship. If I close my eyes will Ted Cruz go away?

I the majority of my job is writing lengthy things. I type roughly 80 words per minute and when it comes to this forum I kind of just let it stream out of my head. I also read 2-3 books a month so I read fast as well, and I kind of think internet culture has reduced attention spans.

All this. But I will add something else. Public moral shaming is a technique to in alter human behavior. It is not new, anybody who has read the scarlet letter will know this, and there are times where it may even be appropriate - like if you are trying to convince someone not to commit an illegal act. However, when you use moral shaming to try and get someone to not exercise their legal rights under due process, by saying "it is a waste of a cops time" or "they should take personal responsibility", it is not appropriate. By the way I hope the irony wasn't lost on anyone that I used the same technique to try and get those doing it to rethink it by calling it despicable and unamerican. you want to shame someone into not speeding, or not stealing go right ahead. you want to shame someone into not exercising their constitutionally protected rights? that's pretty unamerican. carry on.

I got his point. The mistake is thinking that "fighting crime" excludes the part where the officer has to testify and defend his accusation. Remember it is an accusation, it is not a determination of guilt or innocence. It is not nor will it ever be a "waste of a police officers time" to defend their accusation - regardless of the reason why a person chooses to exercise their constitutional right as a citizen. Speeding is one of the few crimes that police actually capture in progress. The Overwhelming majority is after the fact investigation and again testimony and defending the accusation is part of the judicial process. The methods of the government in any accusation must always be able to withstand scrutiny to avoid impinging on a citizens rights. A lot of law enforcement is based on credibility, and if your methods aren't credible then you can't really be metering out justice. Let's take the example of aerial enforcement speeding. It is not the most accurate method of law enforcement because - it requires 2 officers at different positions, one to initially identify and time and one to make the stop, and a hand off between the two. One of the officers is not close enough to relay positive identification (can't read a license plate from a cessna 1500 feet in the air). The potential for error in stopping the wrong vehicle is high - actual measurement of the crime depends on a lot of factors that are not always considered. Airspeed vs ground speed, angle of perspective to the "start/finish" lines, the actual length of the lines (distances under at least a mile apart have been shown to be extremely inaccurate, as is speeds measured around curves). It is also mostly a manual process as even VASCAR requires the pilot to flip a switch the moment the car crosses the start line, and every microsecond delay causes a higher speed reading. - it is extremely expensive and does not actually contribute to highway safety. The 55 federally mandated speed limit was imposed as a response to the fuel crisis of the 1970's and has everything to do with fuel economy and nothing to do with safety. In most states that have increased their limits to 70 or 75 they saw no significant increase in traffic accidents, neither have any studies shown that accidents decreased when the initial limit of 55 (down from 75) was placed (some argue that traffic fatalities decreased but that had more to do with automobile safety at the time - most cars of that era still on the road didn't have more than lap belts). By the way it costs roughly about $100+ an hour (excluding personnel costs) to operate a small aircraft. Compare that to what it costs to operate a cruiser and a Lidar gun. But speed enforcement makes the most money so it gets to spend the most on toys. Does this mean they get to use it for other things like rescue and fugitive operations? sure, but those don't really pay for it - speeding does. So how does the enforcement arm counter these issues? Do they review the process and try to improve the efficiency? do they focus on more effective ways of reducing speeding? no they lower the fine so as to incentivize people not to fight it out of convenience. That means they are probably wrong more often than gets reported. If everyone fought their tickets then the problems would be better exposed, but for such a small amount of money who has the time?

You are not getting into that argument Joe because there is no argument you can make about their court appearance that doesn't involve asking a US citizen to waive their constitutional rights. It's a loser of an argument Joe. Just accept that is is a Police Officer's duty and obligation to defend every single accusation he or she makes. Every single one, no exceptions, and regardless as to the reason why the accused chooses to contest the charge. It is a constitutionally protected right and core to our justice system.

pick up trucks are just not secure. if you are going to live out of the vehicle you are going to be in areas where people would slit your throat just for a magazine, let alone steal a minifridge out of the bed. I forgot to mention my father and I used to do camping trips in an old 2 door xj cherokee. for a dude and his small child it was a pretty perfect sleeper setup if you are only traveling for a week or so at a time. However, something like a 2 door tahoe or a bronco might be just the ticket - combine the 4wd capability of a pickup but the security and sleeping arrangements of a small van. as far as carrying your toilet with you, we used to have a portable camping toilet, not the most private solution but we didn't have to squat into a hole or search for a bathroom.

technically Adultery is illegal and punishable by jail in 16 states. 5 states it is punishable by fine, in Maryland it is a $10 fine. 6 states currently allow civil actions against the cheating parties. In all states it is grounds for divorce. There is your fun fact for the day. P.S. some STDs have been linked to judgement impairing mental illness like Syphilis, and if Ted Cruz really is a "christian" family values person that probably means no condoms and a high likelihood of contracting an STD. Maybe that explains most of his platform.

This isn't relevant to the OP's ask unless you presume him to be guilty. Clearly you think he was speeding and he should just pay the ticket. It sends a message and you are trying to shame someone into specific behavior. Not much more to say about it. yeah it's just my opinion. Do you really lose sleep over things that are my opinion?

As far as vehicles you can live out of my personal experience has been with a 1991 dodge airport van and a 1st gen sprinter. Both were our race bike haulers for the two different teams I did support for. For just pure space and quality of life, the sprinter was my favorite. It had so much room I could sleep between the race bikes. The cab was spartain and it was a pain to drive, and I wouldn't call it super reliable either as we had 3 or 4 major services on it the year and a half we used it, although one of them was for damage to the roof from trying to go into a parking garage that was too small. The only thing that scared me about it was if it broke down there wasn't a lot of sprinter parts support - couldn't just fix it at an autozone parking lot. The Dodge van was awesome from a single person experience but sleeping two sucked. The back area was carpeted but that was both a blessing and a curse as it was better insulated but also soaked up the oil from the race bikes which meant we slept in oil. The dodge was fairly reliable except for one time where a clogged fuel line kept us from running for more than an hour at a time, but we fixed that in an autozone parking lot so you can pretty much find parts everywhere. we did use a dakota crew cab pickup one year as our hauler and it was not comfortable to sleep in at all. As a general rule I wouldn't use a pickup as a vehicle I was going to sleep in unless it had a shell on the back and we couldn't haul race bikes with a shell. Buddy of mine has a mid 2000s ford van. We used to to camp in NY a couple of times. it was pretty awesome. He used to have a much older 4wd ford van and that thing rocked except for the fuel mileage.

Nobody here has said they were speeding either. You and others took "stopped for speeding" as an admission of guilt instead of a statement of fact. Thankfully CR isn't a court but rather a forum where assholes argue with each other. Nobody outright said it but what do you think "don't waste the cop's time" implies? I mean come on Joe, as someone who jumped to a fast assumption yourself you have to see the potential implications of your statement. The question is about fighting a citation. Whether it is right or wrong isn't up to us, it is up to the court hearing the case. You are projecting your morals and your judgements on to someone else whom you presume guilty. You aren't the only one by the way, I just chose you to quote because you were the most recent. Flattery will get you everywhere. I mean really Joe, you think any of this is a judgement on your military service? you are taking it more personal than you should. I mean, from my perspective you say some amazingly Stalinist things sometimes, but it is your right as an American to think and feel that way, just as it is mine to be critical of it. People have rights Joe, if you want to shame them for exploring them then be prepared for people to be critical of your statements in a like manner. Nothing is out of context, everything here is relevant. You made a few assumptions and projected your own morality on someone else because you don't approve. and I don't approve of that. I happen to think trying to supress someone's rights for what ever reason is despicable. Does it make you a despicable person? no, but it is how I feel about the act. Just so this stays relevant - the OP should look into whether the ticket will raise the insurance rates and then do a personal cost benefit analysis if it is worth their time to fight it, absent some moral objection to the manner in which the ticket was issued. I am not familiar with the court the citation was issued in but most courts in Ohio have some sort of negotiation arrangement. Also it is relevant to know whether the speed was clocked by VASCAR or by the good old fashioned method of the pilot operating a stop watch (it makes a difference as to the accuracy). Personally, most tickets issued by aircraft are kind of know to be pretty inaccurate due to the different methods which is why the fines on them are pretty low - to encourage people to just "pay the fine" as a means of error correction. TL/DR version just for you Joe: yes we all know you served your country and thank you for your service and just because you commit the despicable act of trying to shame someone to suppress their rights doesn't make you a bad person. Also stop playing dumb like the things you say don't have implications beyond face value.

fighting a ticket is not refusal to take responsibility, nor is it a lack of integrity. It is exercising your right as a citizen. If you want to talk about it in the frame of responsibility then it is meant to hold the government accountable for it's actions in enforcement of laws. Responsibility shaming someone for doing something that is their right under the laws of this country is despicable thing and it carries this implied notion that the government never misbehaves and nobody should challenge the government ever. That's a pretty Un-American outlook. It's their Job Joe, It is what they signed up for. If they can't be bothered to come and defend their accusation then they shouldn't be enforcing laws in the first place. The police officer's word (or the word of any government official for that matter) is not infallible. yes they should get "dragged" to court because it is their job, it is literally why they get paid, sitting on the side of the road holding a LIDAR gun is only a small part of the actual job. Joe, there are laws and everybody has to abide by them, even the ones who enforce them. Shame on those who seek to degenerate a fellow citizen for wanting to explore their options and their rights.

Just kidding.

super lol. I love the new yorker.

well at least I am not the only asshole who thought this. Getting the twins ready for the season: http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f102/Geeto67/1975%20CB750F%20Garage%20Find/E3386592-A233-4E99-83DC-E35FE91A2685_zps8vbqvjct.jpg Sophie says: "hurry up daddy, I wanna ride": http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f102/Geeto67/1975%20CB750F%20Garage%20Find/44BE5C78-D28F-47F2-8AD9-3A811D354A86_zpsywk9uyh9.jpg

we need to bring the rep system back. I would star the shit out of this post. One would need to look at his platform to know he is devoid of christian values, or any values for that matter, so do we really need the adultery to prove he is full of shit? Or did they edit the dozens of passages about helping the poor out of the bible?

If your point is "I am not someone whose opinion matters", I agree whole heartedly. If there is someone who compared trump or Cruz to nazis, it applies to them to. I just didn't see it. Forget the offensiveness of comparing any American politician to leaders who have committed mass ethnic cleansing forms of genocide, as a joke it's offensive for how hack-y it is. I mean, this is terrestrial radio drive time dj levels of hack...no wait I take that back, I think even the ones in major markets wouldn't touch this. I know this isn't the classiest of joint but come on, try a little. On the topic of Hilary, she's functionally a mainstream social conservative, so I don't understand the vitriol from republicans other than this is a branding issue. If there is one positive from her being president it's this: in her term the 100th anniversary of women gaining the right to vote would happen. Nothing sends a better message about progress in our collective social attitude than that occurring while the first woman president is in office. Also way an inspiration to young women that would be. As for trump: don't forget he is legacy wealth. He isn't self made. I once attended the same private school he did for grade school (obviously decades apart) and it was no secret they had expelled him for theft in the eighth grade. Trump's business stragety is to take his vast inherited wealth and throw it like a fist full of darts at a dart board. Some ventures pay off, some don't, but that's his stragety. Is he smart? You bet - he turned his name into a valuable brand through a very opulent public lifestyle, just because you or I think it's tacky just means we aren't his market demographic. There are days when the things he says are despicable and bigoted and days where he is shockingly on point. If there is one thing he represents in this process it is that Americans will largely vote against their best interests for the sake of entertainment.

Because two wrongs make a right I guess? Nazi or hitler comparisons are a great way to flag whatever you are saying as not worth listening too regardless of content. Which is a shame because I actually agree with your statement that this county has been largely ruled by two families since 1979 and it might be time for a change in legacy.

I'm just going to invoke godwin's law here and tell all the people who thought "hitlery" was funny you are wrong because the laws of the Internet think you are wrong and diserve to lose any argument you make. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law Carry on.

No clay, I will not help you TP this guys house.

That is brilliant!!!! Seriously for a second, who cares? I mean are we still laboring under the delousion that politicians are "good" people? Why? All they have to be is a good advocate for the interests of the people they represent and cooperative in achieving goals. After that who cares if they like to have analingus with left handed lesbian midgets or something.

The social media aspect has made it easier for parents to communicate and much easier for the chicken little of the group to rile others up that might not have said anything before. But those chicken littles have always existed. It's not an easy thing to inspire kids. It's sometimes harder to make parents see it shouldn't be adversarial teachers/coaches vs parents. I've been there and do not envy people in that position.