Opheria wrote:
Now if this doesn't make you proud to be a tennessean, I don't know what does.

I read this article and was so disgusted by our police departments' corruption that I had to recommend this link.

---Opheria

Got to love Tenn!

This makes me wish I were a tennessean. Sorry to say, but gays should not be immune from drug laws. If I'm not, then they shouldn't be. Fuck 'em. Not everyone in America finds them charming.

Opheria wrote:
Now if this doesn't make you proud to be a tennessean, I don't know what does.

I read this article and was so disgusted by our police departments' corruption that I had to recommend this link.

---Opheria

Vile wrote:
This makes me wish I were a tennessean. Sorry to say, but gays should not be immune from drug laws. If I'm not, then they shouldn't be. Fuck 'em. Not everyone in America finds them charming.

You can find them "not charming" all you like, but the fact of the matter is that when you target a particular group for enforcement of laws, and the focus of that group has nothing to do with illegal activity, it's not only sloppy police work but probably legally actionable as well. Meaning the police force in question is likely to be hit with a lawsuit that's going to drain their funds and resources and keep them from actually pursuing as many dangerous criminals as they otherwise could.

Besides which, if you'd read the article, you'd know that the police force mentioned aren't merely selectively enforcing laws, they're working in a manner that actually presumes guilt in the face of a lack of evidence (and in this case, in the face of evidence to the contrary!). The defendant that the article focuses on was requested by the CI (confidential informant, or "snitch") to bring over a substance which is actually legal and then for lack of anything better to charge him with, are attempting to charge him with intent to distribute a counterfeit controlled substance. Nevermind that the CI explicitly requested amyl nitrate (the legal inhalant) and told him to leave the butyl nitrate (an illegal inhalant) behind.

Honestly, in this man's case it's not only a certainty that that charge won't stick, but that an appeal of the additional charge of resisting arrest is almost certain to be successful should it be brought before a jury (no 12 sane people are going to say the defendant was off-base in backing away considering the circumstances). None of this madness would have happened to begin with if the police were trying to do their jobs instead of just looking to "bust some queers".

Dagmar wrote:

Vile wrote:
This makes me wish I were a tennessean. Sorry to say, but gays should not be immune from drug laws. If I'm not, then they shouldn't be. Fuck 'em. Not everyone in America finds them charming.

You can find them "not charming" all you like, but the fact of the matter is that when you target a particular group for enforcement of laws, and the focus of that group has nothing to do with illegal activity, it's not only sloppy police work but probably legally actionable as well. Meaning the police force in question is likely to be hit with a lawsuit that's going to drain their funds and resources and keep them from actually pursuing as many dangerous criminals as they otherwise could.

Besides which, if you'd read the article, you'd know that the police force mentioned in the it aren't just selectively enforcing laws, they're working in a manner that actually presumes guilt in the face of a lack of evidence. The defendant that the article focuses on was requested by the CI (confidential informant, or "snitch") to bring over a substance which is actually legal and then for lack of anything better to charge him with, are attempting to charge him with intent to distribute a counterfeit controlled substance. Nevermind that the CI specifically requested amyl nitrate (the legal inhalant) and told him to leave the butyl nitrate (an illegal inhalant) behind.

Honestly, in this man's case it's not only a certainty that that charge won't stick, but that an appeal of the additional charge of resisting arrest is almost certain to be successful should it be brought before a jury (no 12 sane people are going to say the defendant was off-base in backing away considering the circumstances). None of this madness would have happened to begin with if the police were trying to do their jobs instead of just looking to "bust some queers".

Vile wrote: The gays were up to no good. IT's just that they protect their own, and the government protects them and everybody protects them, so the police needed to do this to break down their crime scene.

Vile wrote:

Dagmar wrote:

Vile wrote:
This makes me wish I were a tennessean. Sorry to say, but gays should not be immune from drug laws. If I'm not, then they shouldn't be. Fuck 'em. Not everyone in America finds them charming.

You can find them "not charming" all you like, but the fact of the matter is that when you target a particular group for enforcement of laws, and the focus of that group has nothing to do with illegal activity, it's not only sloppy police work but probably legally actionable as well. Meaning the police force in question is likely to be hit with a lawsuit that's going to drain their funds and resources and keep them from actually pursuing as many dangerous criminals as they otherwise could.

Besides which, if you'd read the article, you'd know that the police force mentioned in the it aren't just selectively enforcing laws, they're working in a manner that actually presumes guilt in the face of a lack of evidence. The defendant that the article focuses on was requested by the CI (confidential informant, or "snitch") to bring over a substance which is actually legal and then for lack of anything better to charge him with, are attempting to charge him with intent to distribute a counterfeit controlled substance. Nevermind that the CI specifically requested amyl nitrate (the legal inhalant) and told him to leave the butyl nitrate (an illegal inhalant) behind.

Honestly, in this man's case it's not only a certainty that that charge won't stick, but that an appeal of the additional charge of resisting arrest is almost certain to be successful should it be brought before a jury (no 12 sane people are going to say the defendant was off-base in backing away considering the circumstances). None of this madness would have happened to begin with if the police were trying to do their jobs instead of just looking to "bust some queers".

Vile wrote: The gays were up to no good. IT's just that they protect their own, and the government protects them and everybody protects them, so the police needed to do this to break down their crime scene.

Yes, the government protects gays...that's why they won't allow them to get married and child services won't really let them adopt. Also, policemen apparently find it amusing to torture (by means of tazering not once, not twice, but three times) a totally innocent gay man.

By the way, if you could post some more, that would be awesome. Your idiocy makes me laugh.

Opheria wrote:

Vile wrote:

Dagmar wrote:

Vile wrote:
This makes me wish I were a tennessean. Sorry to say, but gays should not be immune from drug laws. If I'm not, then they shouldn't be. Fuck 'em. Not everyone in America finds them charming.

You can find them "not charming" all you like, but the fact of the matter is that when you target a particular group for enforcement of laws, and the focus of that group has nothing to do with illegal activity, it's not only sloppy police work but probably legally actionable as well. Meaning the police force in question is likely to be hit with a lawsuit that's going to drain their funds and resources and keep them from actually pursuing as many dangerous criminals as they otherwise could.

Besides which, if you'd read the article, you'd know that the police force mentioned in the it aren't just selectively enforcing laws, they're working in a manner that actually presumes guilt in the face of a lack of evidence. The defendant that the article focuses on was requested by the CI (confidential informant, or "snitch") to bring over a substance which is actually legal and then for lack of anything better to charge him with, are attempting to charge him with intent to distribute a counterfeit controlled substance. Nevermind that the CI specifically requested amyl nitrate (the legal inhalant) and told him to leave the butyl nitrate (an illegal inhalant) behind.

Honestly, in this man's case it's not only a certainty that that charge won't stick, but that an appeal of the additional charge of resisting arrest is almost certain to be successful should it be brought before a jury (no 12 sane people are going to say the defendant was off-base in backing away considering the circumstances). None of this madness would have happened to begin with if the police were trying to do their jobs instead of just looking to "bust some queers".

Vile wrote: The gays were up to no good. IT's just that they protect their own, and the government protects them and everybody protects them, so the police needed to do this to break down their crime scene.

Yes, the government protects gays...that's why they won't allow them to get married and child services won't really let them adopt. Also, policemen apparently find it amusing to torture (by means of tazering not once, not twice, but three times) a totally innocent gay man.

By the way, if you could post some more, that would be awesome. Your idiocy makes me laugh.

Vile wrote: I am happy to oblige, opheria. Getting married sucks. It's for fools. Many an idiot has gotten married. They always regret it in as much as I have seen (my research is generally accepted as some of the strongest in this age). Adopting children? People shouldn't breed. Nowhere is this fact more natur... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Vile wrote: I am happy to oblige, opheria. Getting married sucks. It's for fools. Many an idiot has gotten married. They always regret it in as much as I have seen (my research is generally accepted as some of the strongest in this age). Adopting children? People shouldn't breed. Nowhere is this fact more naturally evident than in the biological incompatibility of conception and homosexuality. So, if nature offered that kind of a safeguard against homosexuals having children, then it is up to them and us to make sure that we do not drop children in the laps of those who cannot have them thanks to nature. We shouldn't mess with nature. Most gays would agree with me, since they started all this ecology mumbo jumbo in the first place. Now, if you look closely, you will also find a little known statistic. The police do not draw amusement from tazering the gay folk, but it's the only way they can deal with them. When the gays get out of control, there's no stopping them save for a tazering. It's kind of like a person on PCP, only worse, because of the lack of chemical enhancement. Now you see, I am sure, the error of your own thoughts and beliefs. It's a shame that the homosexuals want to marry and adopt, the way actual human beings do, but they don't want the responsibility that comes with being human, like fessing up to their drug abuses and sales of said controlled DANGEROUS substances. If you have any further questions, I am happy to answer them. Thanks for the interest! I know much about many topics. I always like to enlighten. So, opheria, now you know...and you know what they say about knowing? It's half the battle!

I have bestowed this award upon you for your ability to craft targeted and strategic posts to piss off the largest amount of people possible. I also award you for your own sexual insecurities that allow you to imply that homosexuals are not "actual human beings." Kudos to you! Oh, and please do not neglect to visit the url below to receive this prestigious award. Thank you for your time...and attention.

And because of your unique disregard for human life and everything that pertains, we will stray from the normal policy of not feeding the trolls. Eat up.

World's Greatest Poster Award - given to Vile