Free Republic

“No. We were talking about the specific situation where the guy was being questioned.and walked up on the officer.”

We were talking about your word “anytime” and now you’re changing it to “specific situation”.

And using the words “walked up on” here isn’t helpful. They are what I wanted explained to begin with. Recall my questions at the start were “What’s this “ walk up on a cop” stuff? What is “Walking up on a cop”?”. (And they are questions that apply to “anywhere” not just this specific situation.)

“You brought up meeting an officer on the street or in a grocery store later.”

As examples of “anytime” because you wrote “anytime”.

Bless your heart.

So you changed your mind?

“Anytime you move and moving gets you closer to an officer it’s walking up on them. Especially when you have an attitude that’s bigger than your IQ.“

I think that’s the kind of response I wanted originally, troubling as it is. If the first sentence defined ”walking up on them” which you shouldn’t do, then you can’t pass them on the street or in an aisle at the grocery or exit the store if they are by the door, or approach them to report a crime or ask directions or tell them their fly is open, or much of anything. The second sentence is kind of subjective. I wonder how they write this into law.

“Why are you defending that looser?“

I don’t believe I defended him and I don’t disagree that he’s a “looser”, and probably his wife too.

At least you provided a better response to my original post.

“ Look at the still in post 17. He walked up chest to chest to the officer. It was a very stupid move.

Look at the video from 1:50 or so past the point from which the still was taken. As I wrote, “He stepped outside his door to go past, not toward, the officer…” Then he was FIRST accused of walking up on the officer. Then he stepped closer to talk to the officer after which he was accused a SECOND time. The still in post 17 doesn’t mean anything except as an example of cherry picking.

My questions still stand, the questions being “What’s this “Don’t walk up on a cop” stuff? What is “Walking up on a cop”?” to which you responded “It’s what that guy did, watch the video.”

All you seem to be doing is feeding me crap that is useless for answering the questions. And maybe redirecting the flow of the conversation so you can play “I win”.

“...the jury foreperson reported that one juror refused to follow the law on reasonable doubt...”

Does anyone outside the jury room even know the particulars of this juror’s position and how he wasn’t following the law?

“X (Which Everyone Still Calls Twitter)”

They should be calling it TwiXter.

“It’s what that guy did, watch the video.”

I did. He stepped outside his door to go past, not toward, the officer and was accused of walking up on the officer. Then he stepped closer to talk to the officer after which he was again accused. In my opinion he was not aggressive or threatening.

My question stands.

What’s this “Don’t walk up on a cop” stuff? What is “Walking up on a cop”?

“... but be required to pay property taxes ...”

And if they don’t, does it get foreclosed and become someone else’s problem?

Nodding (not shaking) her head “no”, gazing down with her eyes closed: I miss the English language we used to share.

“... what percent of conservative women are on mental health medications vs liberal women?”

Are conservatives less likely to put faith in so called mental health professionals and therefore less likely to turn up as diagnosed and medicated?

“Those “false positive” problems can usually be avoided by skilled, honest examiners. And all positives must be carefully investigated against the facts.”

When asked to submit to a polygraph, how are you supposed to know the examiner will be skilled and honest and the positive answers will be carefully investigated? My concern is that if “they” think you are guilty or want to get you, polygraph tests that don’t support their view will be determined “inconclusive” rather than “innocent”.

I think that’s crazy.

“Men kill their families too.”

As did Timothy Jones Jr. who killed his five children (news from 2014-2019)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-carolina-father-who-killed-his-5-kids-gets-death-n1017351

“A South Carolina father was sentenced to death Thursday for killing his five children with his own hands.”

“The defense focused on what his lawyers called undiagnosed schizophrenia made worse by drug and alcohol use. Jurors last week rejected their arguments that Jones was not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty but mentally ill.”

Search question: How long did the jury deliberate in the case of Timothy Jones Jr?

AI overview: The jury in the trial of Timothy Jones Jr. deliberated for about six hours over two days for the guilt phase, and less than two hours for the sentencing phase.

I believe he is now in jail awaiting execution.

"Crazy, not stupid."

Regarding Timothy Jones Jr. killing his five children (news from 2014-2019)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-carolina-father-who-killed-his-5-kids-gets-death-n1017351

“A South Carolina father was sentenced to death Thursday for killing his five children with his own hands.”

“The defense focused on what his lawyers called undiagnosed schizophrenia made worse by drug and alcohol use. Jurors last week rejected their arguments that Jones was not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty but mentally ill.”

Search question: How long did the jury deliberate in the case of Timothy Jones Jr?

AI overview: The jury in the trial of Timothy Jones Jr. deliberated for about six hours over two days for the guilt phase, and less than two hours for the sentencing phase.

I believe he is now in jail awaiting execution.

“Yep - ya gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.”

I broke a few eggs last week and all I made was a mess for the store personnel to clean up.

‘Blaming disparities in science (and other fields) on “institutional racism” is, he argues, a distraction from dealing with the actual reasons (such as poor basic education) why relatively few blacks make it into academic positions in science. “Systemic racism” is just a feeble excuse.’

OK, the “disparities in science (and other fields)” are not due to “systemic racism” at their entry level, but that does not preclude “the actual reasons (such as poor basic education)” being due to “systemic racism”, it just moves the point at which “systemic racism” should be addressed, which he doesn’t do.

And he didn’t define “systemic racism”. I’m not sure what “systemic racism” is or when it begins, if it does at all.

“It’s Ma’am”

OK Man. I hear ya Man.

If Thomas is a race traitor for supporting the Constitution (and therefore the United States) instead of his race, does that mean that those who would have him support his race instead of the Constitution (and therefore the United States) are traitors to the Constitution and the United States?