kirks5oh Posted May 15, 2015 Report Share Posted May 15, 2015 Wasn't he still able to post in the dwiggs thread? That's why the thread would jump ahead a page but no one could read his posts? He will probably claim some ptsd bullshit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coltboostin Posted May 15, 2015 Report Share Posted May 15, 2015 Matt alan Todd Who? This was the guy who attempted to build a turbo vette off of his government disability money? What?! wait, are we talking about imstock2? Ah! It all makes sense now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate1647545505 Posted May 15, 2015 Report Share Posted May 15, 2015 Stupidity won't affect VA disability compensation. He will likely claim it was his meds, he was on them or off them. Been under treatment and that there was a trigger event in the confrontation that made him feel threatened and he didn't register it was a cop. This guys pounding his chest about being a vet is a black eye for service members who are doing the right things day in and day out. Don't worry, 18 months later and the VSO still says "soon". :dumb: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted May 16, 2015 Report Share Posted May 16, 2015 I guess we're not big fans of the presumption of innocence here. The paper tells one side of the story. I wonder what the other side is? As several people have pointed out, it doesn't make a lot of sense to attack a police officer just because he tells you you are trespassing. That's a pretty serious crime and not something you are likely to get away with. Most people (even criminals) would need a pretty good reason to ignore the consequences and act violently against an officer. Not saying it didn't happen that way. Maybe it did and these folks are just crazy. But I wonder . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyctsv Posted May 16, 2015 Report Share Posted May 16, 2015 I guess we're not big fans of the presumption of innocence here. The paper tells one side of the story. I wonder what the other side is? As several people have pointed out, it doesn't make a lot of sense to attack a police officer just because he tells you you are trespassing. That's a pretty serious crime and not something you are likely to get away with. Most people (even criminals) would need a pretty good reason to ignore the consequences and act violently against an officer. Not saying it didn't happen that way. Maybe it did and these folks are just crazy. But I wonder . . . . You make a good point but I think the problem is our previous experience with this guy makes the story seem realistic. Though I admit most have not met him and only know him through his crazy posts here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acklac7 Posted May 16, 2015 Report Share Posted May 16, 2015 Judging by his posts I could see him doing something like this in a heartbeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoe Posted May 16, 2015 Report Share Posted May 16, 2015 To presume innocence, would require having a history to support you having the benefit of the doubt. This guy did not provide us with the means to support that he makes good decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted May 16, 2015 Report Share Posted May 16, 2015 I guess we're not big fans of the presumption of innocence here. The paper tells one side of the story. I wonder what the other side is? As several people have pointed out, it doesn't make a lot of sense to attack a police officer just because he tells you you are trespassing. That's a pretty serious crime and not something you are likely to get away with. Most people (even criminals) would need a pretty good reason to ignore the consequences and act violently against an officer. Not saying it didn't happen that way. Maybe it did and these folks are just crazy. But I wonder . . . . Dammit and I just got out my torch and pitchfork for nothin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted May 16, 2015 Report Share Posted May 16, 2015 To presume innocence, would require having a history to support you having the benefit of the doubt. This guy did not provide us with the means to support that he makes good decisions. You have that backwards, unless you live in a country other than the US. You start with the presumption of innocence and then use the information to overcome that presumption beyond a reasonable doubt. The guy made a lot of bad posts on an Internet forum, whoptie fucking doo. Other than it being evidence of poor comprehension of how the Internet works, unless he made statements about this event or something relating to it the only thing the guy provided you with is a platform to jump to a lot of ill informed conclusions. I'm with Ben, this is only one side of the story and it is highly unusual to assault a police officer without provocation. Will be interested in seeing how this pans out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unfunnyryan Posted May 17, 2015 Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 You have that backwards, unless you live in a country other than the US. You start with the presumption of innocence and then use the information to overcome that presumption beyond a reasonable doubt. The guy made a lot of bad posts on an Internet forum, whoptie fucking doo. Other than it being evidence of poor comprehension of how the Internet works, unless he made statements about this event or something relating to it the only thing the guy provided you with is a platform to jump to a lot of ill informed conclusions. I'm with Ben, this is only one side of the story and it is highly unusual to assault a police officer without provocation. Will be interested in seeing how this pans out. THE KITCHEN IS NO PLACE FOR LOGIC http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qIIxcMelKX8/TZBbXlp82PI/AAAAAAAAADY/AHI6CdCMwOI/s1600/slap.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted May 17, 2015 Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 You have that backwards, unless you live in a country other than the US. You start with the presumption of innocence and then use the information to overcome that presumption beyond a reasonable doubt. The guy made a lot of bad posts on an Internet forum, whoptie fucking doo. Other than it being evidence of poor comprehension of how the Internet works, unless he made statements about this event or something relating to it the only thing the guy provided you with is a platform to jump to a lot of ill informed conclusions. I'm with Ben, this is only one side of the story and it is highly unusual to assault a police officer without provocation. Will be interested in seeing how this pans out. This isn't a courtroom, we don't decide innocence or guilt. We voice our opinions, and in this matter, with which you are unfamiliar, this guy is a fucking tool. Read his post history to find out why people have this opinion. Share the opinion, or don't. Most of us won't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Bastard Posted May 17, 2015 Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 I met him in person once, he was a tool then as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Nice Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Most of us won't care. Bingo. CR in a nutshell. http://img.pandawhale.com/94311-Austin-Powers-in-a-nutshell-gi-wkxn.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowflake Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 This isn't a courtroom, we don't decide innocence or guilt. We voice our opinions, and in this matter, with which you are unfamiliar, this guy is a fucking tool. Read his post history to find out why people have this opinion. Share the opinion, or don't. Most of us won't care. Maybe dude should represent him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 This isn't a courtroom, we don't decide innocence or guilt. We voice our opinions, and in this matter, with which you are unfamiliar, this guy is a fucking tool. Read his post history to find out why people have this opinion. Share the opinion, or don't. Most of us won't care. Yay!!!! my internet stalker is back!!!! I have missed your particular brand of illogical gibberish. I've been leaving Easter eggs around the internet for you to find - have you been getting them? I've read the guys pasts posts. again - bad at the internet, probably bad at life, still not the whole story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Here's his Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/todd.allen.121/photos :lolguy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 You have that backwards, unless you live in a country other than the US. You start with the presumption of innocence and then use the information to overcome that presumption beyond a reasonable doubt. Except that is how the government has to work and doesn't apply to private citizens and their opinions. Just like how you can be banned from a private entity for expressing an opinion and the 1st amendment doesn't protect you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Except that is how the government has to work and doesn't apply to private citizens and their opinions. Just like how you can be banned from a private entity for expressing an opinion and the 1st amendment doesn't protect you The First amendment (and really most of the constitution) only applies to government interference and/or protection of your rights. For laws concerning interactions with private citizens you have to look to other federal, state, and local laws. I guess it is a good thing that the opinions of private citizens have no real weight (or at least are not supposed to) in determining punishment by a state government entity. In other words, you are completely entitled to your opinion but it doesn't mean shit (unless you are on that Jury in which case you have access to way more evidence than just the insane ramblings on a message board). Now if you want to express your opinion in the form of civil disobedience via protest, riot etc....well then that's a different story <puts on flame suit> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoe Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 I've read the guys pasts posts. again - bad at the internet, probably bad at life, still not the whole story. My view on it is, reguardless of whole story, who cares to be in his corner? The last thing I'm going to do is try and show support for a guy who was a fool with every interaction. I'm not his attorny or family, and I simply don't care enough to try and validate his actions. Guilty until proven inocent can be how people look at it, because that's for the courts to sort out. CR is full opionion, all the time. There are a few past members who have had their run in's with legal issues. For this guy, he was afforded every opertunity to not be a fool on here, yet he still was. And now we see him caught in something that many just aren't suprized by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 The last thing I'm going to do is try and show support for a guy who was a fool with every interaction. I'm not his attorny or family, and I simply don't care enough to try and validate his actions. Guilty until proven inocent can be how people look at it, because that's for the courts to sort out. It's not support of someone if I think I am not getting the whole story behind his arrest. Being a skeptic is usually not an indication of endorsement. As far as the "courts" sorting it out - well those courts have jury trials, and juries are made up of people like me, like you, like most of the people on this site. If you were on trial whom would you prefer on your jury? someone like me, or someone like you? Justice in American begins with the individual and not the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoe Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 It's not support of someone if I think I am not getting the whole story behind his arrest. Being a skeptic is usually not an indication of endorsement. As far as the "courts" sorting it out - well those courts have jury trials, and juries are made up of people like me, like you, like most of the people on this site. If you were on trial whom would you prefer on your jury? someone like me, or someone like you? Justice in American begins with the individual and not the system. I would hope that people on this site wouldn't think I have made a fool of myself every time they have talked to me. So for that part of your question, I'll take the CR jury members. If I was called for jury duty for this guy, I would disqualify myself for not being able to make a nonjudgmental decision on this guy, based on my known conduct from him in the past. I've been on jury duty before. I get how it works. Our justice system is in place, and I support it. I'm not debating that. I'm simply letting you know that many people on here are going to voice their opinion, as they have, regardless of how the law works or what the full story is. Not to mention, this is exactly why this was posted in the "Kitchen". Short of making threats and being racist, people can say just about anything they like in here about the guy. Don’t take this as me saying I think there is nothing more than what was reported to the story. There always is. News sucks at being accurate. All I’m saying is, CR is not the right place for this guy to get the benefit of the doubt. And, that seeing his name in some sort of legal issue is of no surprise, to what seems like 99% of the people here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 I would hope that people on this site wouldn't think I have made a fool of myself every time they have talked to me. That's a lofty hope for everyone, not just you. We are humans. It's our nature to say stupid things. So for that part of your question, I'll take the CR jury members That wasn't an option, unless you mean CR jury members think like you and rush to judgement. If I was called for jury duty for this guy, I would disqualify myself for not being able to make a nonjudgmental decision on this guy, based on my known conduct from him in the past. And you would be correct in doing so - unless you live in a very very very small town personal knowledge/interaction with the defendant is a standard dis-qualifier. I'm simply letting you know that many people on here are going to voice their opinion, as they have, regardless of how the law works or what the full story is. Not only do I fully understand that, but I exploit it a little for personal amusement. I see a lot of the same opinion with without much diversity and if I disagree with it I post a contrary opinion to stir the pot. Why? because discourse and opposing viewpoints is the cornerstone of meaningful conversation. Not to mention, this is exactly why this was posted in the "Kitchen". Short of making threats and being racist, people can say just about anything they like in here about the guy. see above. I am not shocked by any of what's said here, and my moral outrage amounts to a flea's fart. I find the whole thing hilarious enhanced only by either intelligent conversation or more hilarious responses. It is kind of the point of the internet to read inflammatory things, so why not add to the fire. I will thank you for the civil discourse though, at least it isn't personal and you aren't spending hours internet stalking me like some other members here. Don’t take this as me saying I think there is nothing more than what was reported to the story. There always is. News sucks at being accurate. You and I have the same opinion on the news. All I’m saying is, CR is not the right place for this guy to get the benefit of the doubt. And, that seeing his name in some sort of legal issue is of no surprise, to what seems like 99% of the people here. And all I am saying is: 1) every place is the right place to be skeptical; 2) being skeptical does not automatically translate into an opinion on the person's past behavior if the thing your are skeptical about is pretty much universally suspect for nearly anyone (like how a trespassing conversation turns into assault where an officer's weapon becomes unsecured). Also 99% of statistics are made up on the spot - there are others who lean toward not condemning the guy if you go back and read but have expressed it differently. This place tends to be a dog pile sometimes of overwhelming judgmental behavior and honestly it could use a dissenting opinion sometimes to keep things lively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoe Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 You seem to be a passionate person. I can respect that. I just haven't budgeted the time to continue this with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 You seem to be a passionate person. I can respect that. I just haven't budgeted the time to continue this with you. Fair point. Passionate? hardly. Again it's all amusement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Cranium Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 It's not support of someone if I think I am not getting the whole story behind his arrest. Being a skeptic is usually not an indication of endorsement. As far as the "courts" sorting it out - well those courts have jury trials, and juries are made up of people like me, like you, like most of the people on this site. If you were on trial whom would you prefer on your jury? someone like me, or someone like you? Justice in American begins with the individual and not the system. As a former juror, when confronted with two sides of the same story, I will take the side I believe has more credibility. The witness to the crime is not a drunken hobo with no credibility. The witness to the crime is a law enforcement officer. Even without knowing either of them I am going to lean toward the side of the public servant. Knowing that the other side of the story is a leach on society, give me one reason to not believe the LEO. Nobody seems surprised at this story. It's just the next evolution in bad decision making from someone who has an excellent record of bad decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.