This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Preston on 27 May 2007 - 21:05
Seriously, you can name call and insult forum posters with all the profanity you want until Oli intercedes. All you can do is deliver insults because you have no facts to state and cannot argue anything reasonable. I stand by my assertion that you are not a police officer. And you cannot prove otherwise. And a quick contextual and syntaxic analysis of your posting history and timing present several interesting patterns. No licensed law enforcement officer would ever communicate as you do. Compare yourself to Do Right whose background as a retired police officer with many years of ethical and honest service to the community that has been verified. He made his actual name and department phone number available on this site more than once and actually did what he said he did. And anyone who reads his posts knows that they ring true. Do Right is a true hero, someone who risked his life and valiantly served the community for many years, a stand up officer, worthy of the badge and trustworthy with his gun. He is a ceredit to all police officers everywhere and represents the profession as it should be. Plus he is a good citizen too and takes good care of his dogs. He's the kind of PO every community wants and the kind of next door neighbor we all want.
On the otherhand your posts do not ring true and could not be from a police officer. It is obvious to any knowledgeable person reading them. You have thus thoroughly discredited yourself by such a fraudulant misrepresentations in your posts and such hostile remarks to reasonable posters. I have known some "bad cops" and they don't participate in these types of forums or post. You are not a bad cop either, just not a cop at all. No need to try and prove otherwise because you cannot, regardless of what you claim.
by marci on 27 May 2007 - 22:05
by seriously on 28 May 2007 - 05:05
Preston,
whatever. think what you want. as stated, don't care. :)
love ya!
by gsdlvr2 on 28 May 2007 - 23:05
Wait, wooopsie,.....
Seriously,maybe I was wrong?. I think I screwed up. Now I feel bad :{. If so accept my appologies. It is quite possible you are non copos mentis..if that is true I am sorry for my comments,and good luck growing up! If indeed you are able.
Small people deliver big problems as evidenced by the tragedy at hand and your silliness on here.
by gsdlvr2 on 29 May 2007 - 00:05
by gsdlvr2 on 29 May 2007 - 00:05
by seriously on 29 May 2007 - 03:05
sorry, I, uh, meant......hey wait a second. Oh yeah, I'm not an idiot. I can type and not screw shit up.
Nevermind.
by MVF on 29 May 2007 - 07:05
by MVF on 29 May 2007 - 07:05
Seriously has tried to make us back up a bit and see the POSSIBILITY that there is more to the story. That seems reasonable to me. The problem is this: we are not proximate to the situation, and we are mobilizing now to do some good. We all know if we just let it sit to see how it turns out, we run the risk of doing nothing when we should do something. As the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. said (paraphrasing) the oppressor doesn't give away rights, the oppressed must take them. Dog lovers must face up to the fact that we must fight for rights for our dogs. It is apparent from the rash of such dog killings by police that dogs are free for the killing, so to speak. They even chased a urinating dog into a bathroom and killed her while she was shaking and hiding -- anyone need that cite again? I have, I admit, already written a letter to the sheriff in the Max case. I don't want to (nor do I think I could) bully the sheriff into punishing an innocent officer; all I am doing is trying to shine light on the situation so that he thinks a cover up is just a little bit harder. (In my case, I can send my graduate students to the phones to call for interviews, for example.) I do hope that we all agree with seriously that we would not want to rush a conviction on Officer Long without the evidence in hand'; were we on the jury we would want to take it all in before passing judgment. But the individual case of Max has become something more, it seems to me: it has become a catalyst for all of us, and all of us here love dogs, to realize just how vulnerable our dogs really are in this world.
In the interest of honesty, I have to admit that I am an ethical vegetarian, so I do feel as a matter of broader principle that all sentient beings should be extended some basic rights. But like most of you, I think dogs should be extended the right to be protected from wanton cruelty and killing because they are an inconvenience to cops who would rather not come back later, knock, etc., or who wish to use the killing of a dog as a means of threatening families and their neighbors. Until we make enought of a stink, until we move some state legislators to action, this can't be worth much. I recommend that all of you write to your state legislator and ask for legislation to protect the lives of family pets from harm by investigating LE officers, with exceptions made for life threatening situations.
by ladywolf45169 on 29 May 2007 - 10:05
I don't know who said it, but my favorite phrase to use with my kids is:
"better to keep your mouth shut, and let people THINK you are stupid, then to open it and remove all doubt"
Christine
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top