What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Cops: No Snarky Nor Positive Title

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://twitter.com/typicaldarkski1/...86977285595146

The dude was vaping...apparently that required 5 cops to stop him one of whom knees him in the head multiple times. (and he or someone else there was tazed over it apparently) They take their ticketable offenses very serious in Ocean City!

This is what the OCPD put out in response:

https://twitter.com/OCPDMDInfo/statu...16576627326977

OCPD was on foot patrol in the area of 12th St & the Boardwalk, when they observed a large group vaping on the Boardwalk. Four individuals were placed under arrest during this incident. We are aware of the social media videos circulating regarding this incident.
Click to expand...

edit: And here is the video of him being tazed: https://twitter.com/DrRJKavanagh/sta...20794096455684

FOR FUCKING VAPING!

And before one of the resident "he should have complied" people says it...he reached back to his bag cause they asked him to take it off. So apparently Complying While Black is illegal now as well.
 
Last edited:
You know, if white folk were treated like this every day by the cops, they might do something radical, like, an insurrection against their government, or something.
 
Handyman said:
edit: And here is the video of him...twitter.com/DrRJKavanagh/sta...20794096455684

FOR FUCKING VAPING!

And before one of the resident "he should have complied" people says it...he reached back to his bag cause they asked him to take it off. So apparently Complying While Black is illegal now as well.
Click to expand...
Its almost as if you put a bunch of adrenaline junkies in a group, and told to go out to protect the profits, and fuck the people (because that’s a great long-term solution…), that they’re going to act in a hyped up manner for even the smallest infractions. Then they all get to yell incompatible instructions at people just to see which cop gets to shoot first for “failure to comply” orders.
 
I thought I saw a news report that it may have been a drunk driving incident, although I don't know that I've heard anything definitively.
 
rufus said:
First instinct is to excuse the incident. Check.
Click to expand...

Drunk driving is an excuse? Maybe in Maine or New Hampshire or wherever you're hiding out it is, but I'm pretty sure it's still against the law here in Minnesota, especially when you kill someone while doing it.
 
You don't know that he was drunk.

But that's the story you're choosing to go with. As was said, so on point.
 
Pretty much every story about it says he was likely impaired with drugs or alcohol. None of them make it sound like an accident though. This is not what I would classify as a "drunk driving incident" which is what is implied with such a comment.

So, technically SJHovey is correct but seeing as he spends half his time here being Mr. Pedantic he knows what he said is also wrong. Yes the driver was (likely) drunk when he hit the parked car that hit the woman. (it was parked to protect the protesters and flew through the air he hit it so hard) The driver didn't do this BECAUSE he was drunk though. Drunk Drivers don't intend to kill people they are just trying to get from Point A to Point B. It is, by definition an accident. This waste of carbon (likely) did it to go after the protestors and just happened to have a few drinks and maybe some narcotics before doing so. It was likely not an accident, he just needed liquid courage to do it because (if this was pre-meditated) he has zero ability to hold an erection and is too chickenshit to take his own life so he has to kill others for daring to have a fucking opinion.
 
Handyman said:
Pretty much every story about it says he was likely impaired with drugs or alcohol. None of them make it sound like an accident though. This is not what I would classify as a "drunk driving incident" which is what is implied with such a comment.

So, technically SJHovey is correct but seeing as he spends half his time here being Mr. Pedantic he knows what he said is also wrong. Yes the driver was (likely) drunk when he hit the parked car that hit the woman. (it was parked to protect the protesters and flew through the air he hit it so hard) The driver didn't do this BECAUSE he was drunk though. Drunk Drivers don't intend to kill people they are just trying to get from Point A to Point B. It is, by definition an accident. This waste of carbon (likely) did it to go after the protestors and just happened to have a few drinks and maybe some narcotics before doing so. It was likely not an accident, he just needed liquid courage to do it because (if this was pre-meditated) he has zero ability to hold an erection and is too chicken**** to take his own life so he has to kill others for daring to have a fucking opinion.
Click to expand...

I wasn't "technically" right. I was actually right. News reports indicated that the guy was likely under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

You'll note that nowhere in my post did I suggest some sort of accidental death, even though you (and apparently others here) chose to project that into the post.
 
SJHovey said:
I wasn't "technically" right. I was actually right. News reports indicated that the guy was likely under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Click to expand...
See, that right there was his critical error. You can’t plow into protestors while drunk - you’re supposed to do it ON PURPOSE if you want to be exonerated.
 
LynahFan said:
See, that right there was his critical error. You can’t plow into protestors while drunk - you’re supposed to do it ON PURPOSE if you want to be exonerated.
Click to expand...

That's what separates Reckless Driving from Religious Freedumb.

If a con runs over a bunch of BLM protesters he can sue them for damage to his truck.
 
SJHovey said:
I wasn't "technically" right. I was actually right. News reports indicated that the guy was likely under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

You'll note that nowhere in my post did I suggest some sort of accidental death, even though you (and apparently others here) chose to project that into the post.
Click to expand...

Technically all true but you must understand adding this tidbit gave the impression you were tossing out the question of whether or not he did it on purpose. That may not have been your intent but it was the first impression that came to mind as I read the post.
 
Slap Shot said:
Technically all true but you must understand adding this tidbit gave the impression you were tossing out the question of whether or not he did it on purpose. That may not have been your intent but it was the first impression that came to mind as I read the post.
Click to expand...

But I think a large part of that has to do with what a sizable number of posters think I think, or think I posted about before.

I don't believe I've ever suggested that any of the other drivers who have run over protesters should have their conduct excused. Did anyone hear any objections from me when those drivers were prosecuted and held accountable for their actions?

Heck, I don't even consider drunk driving an "accident." As far as I'm concerned, if you intentionally consume alcoholic beverages and then intentionally place yourself behind the wheel of a car, you've just intentionally caused whatever collision or death that may follow.
 
SJHovey said:
But I think a large part of that has to do with what a sizable number of posters think I think, or think I posted about before.
Click to expand...

My conclusion had nothing to do with a faulty memory of you exonerating likewise behavior in the past - I have zero recollection of you doing so. But there is a whole package thing going on here and perception can be a bitch to overcome. To be fair I am not sure I would conclude differently if a more left-leaning poster made the comment. It was poorly timed and immaterial at least contextually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top