TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

How on earth are police ever supposed to rule out suspects without questioning them?

---

Different question, entirely. What was he a suspect of?  NOTHING.  

To have a suspect, you have to have a CRIME.  There is ZERO indication that he committed a crime.  The article doesn't even say a crime was committed for there to be a need for a "suspect".

Remember that when Husker's buddy was pulled over with Husker in the car, when he ran a stop sing right in front of the cops, failed the sobriety test and his BAC was ...

What was it Husker? .09? .14?

Husker said they shouldn't have stopped him or arrested him.

They might have saved Husker's life by doing it, but the cops were WRONG to stop his drunk buddy.

Just like the cops were wrong to question the guy who walked past the store 5 times.

And ... I would like to see this too ...

-----------------------------------------------

"We are too far apart for jello wrestling.

 NO ONE wants to see that. Trust me.

flan

Speak for yourself! My DH might enjoy seeing me jello wrestle!  lol "

huskerbb wrote:

 

---

It was .081 and they didn't save anyone's life.  He didn't even get convicted.   

---

You're fooling yourself. Yes, most people who blow .081 do get home alive. But the odds of crashing a MUCH higher than they are for someone who's sober. 

Do you really think he'd have blown through a stop sign right in front of the cops if he'd been sober? Aren't you at least a little glad there wasn't a semi barreling across that intersection on the through street?

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

How on earth are police ever supposed to rule out suspects without questioning them?

---

Different question, entirely. What was he a suspect of?  NOTHING.  

 

To have a suspect, you have to have a CRIME.  There is ZERO indication that he committed a crime.  The article doesn't even say a crime was committed for there to be a need for a "suspect".

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of December 2014 03:07:09 PM

---

 NOT TRUE.  A store that had been robbed multiple times reported that a man walked by their store several times in a short period looking in the window.  That is suspicious behavior whether you want to admit it or not.

---

 It hadn't been robbed that day.  There is ZERO indication that he did it--even AFTER he was questioned that assertion was not made.

So, looking in the window of a business is illegal, now?  Ridiculous.  Better tell my wife that window shopping is out from now on.

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

How on earth are police ever supposed to rule out suspects without questioning them?

---

Different question, entirely. What was he a suspect of?  NOTHING.  

 

To have a suspect, you have to have a CRIME.  There is ZERO indication that he committed a crime.  The article doesn't even say a crime was committed for there to be a need for a "suspect".

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of December 2014 03:07:09 PM

---

 NOT TRUE.  A store that had been robbed multiple times reported that a man walked by their store several times in a short period looking in the window.  That is suspicious behavior whether you want to admit it or not.

---

 It hadn't been robbed that day.  There is ZERO indication that he did it--even AFTER he was questioned that assertion was not made.

 

So, looking in the window of a business is illegal, now?  Ridiculous.  Better tell my wife that window shopping is out from now on.

---

Does she walk back & forth or does she actually go INTO the shop? 

NO ONE SAID IT WAS ILLEGAL, but it seemed suspicious to the employees.

flan

Tinydancer wrote:

---

All I can say is I'm so glad Husker doesn't run my police department. We'd be over run with criminals because unless the crooks did something illegal the police couldn't even question them. So Husker if some guys are planning a terrorist attack and you see them planning it but you can't ask questions because they haven't actually done it yet...lol That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. Funny how you can't find a single person to agree with you on that.

---

I didn't say that, at all.  If they do something illegal, the police can absolutely question them, arrest them, or whatever.

Again, what did this guy do that was ILLEGAL????  NOTHING.

Again, there is ZERO evidence that he was planning on committing a crime, so your other ridiculous theory doesn't hold, either.  

If the police see someone about to commit an illegal act, sure they should stop them, but again, where is the evidence that is the case here?  Not even the police make that assertion after talking to him.   

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

All I can say is I'm so glad Husker doesn't run my police department. We'd be over run with criminals because unless the crooks did something illegal the police couldn't even question them. So Husker if some guys are planning a terrorist attack and you see them planning it but you can't ask questions because they haven't actually done it yet...lol That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. Funny how you can't find a single person to agree with you on that.

---

I didn't say that, at all.  If they do something illegal, the police can absolutely question them, arrest them, or whatever.

 

Again, what did this guy do that was ILLEGAL????  NOTHING.

 

Again, there is ZERO evidence that he was planning on committing a crime, so your other ridiculous theory doesn't hold, either.  

If the police see someone about to commit an illegal act, sure they should stop them, but again, where is the evidence that is the case here?  Not even the police make that assertion after talking to him.   

---

 You're right. There was zero evidence that he was committing a crime at that MOMENT. Robbers "case the joint" all the time. How would they know he wasn't up to something without talking to him. Also it's not illegal for the cops to ask him questions. You're smarter than this Husker why don't you just admit you're wrong for once?

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

People who were there thought he acted suspicious and called the cops. When a store has been robbed 7 times, the cops cannot ignore them. Geesh.

---

They were wrong.   

---

Hindsight is 20/20, isn't it?

flan 

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

All I can say is I'm so glad Husker doesn't run my police department. We'd be over run with criminals because unless the crooks did something illegal the police couldn't even question them. So Husker if some guys are planning a terrorist attack and you see them planning it but you can't ask questions because they haven't actually done it yet...lol That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. Funny how you can't find a single person to agree with you on that.

---

I didn't say that, at all.  If they do something illegal, the police can absolutely question them, arrest them, or whatever.

 

Again, what did this guy do that was ILLEGAL????  NOTHING.

 

Again, there is ZERO evidence that he was planning on committing a crime, so your other ridiculous theory doesn't hold, either.  

If the police see someone about to commit an illegal act, sure they should stop them, but again, where is the evidence that is the case here?  Not even the police make that assertion after talking to him.   

---

 You're right. There was zero evidence that he was committing a crime at that MOMENT. Robbers "case the joint" all the time. How would they know he wasn't up to something without talking to him. Also it's not illegal for the cops to ask him questions. You're smarter than this Husker why don't you just admit you're wrong for once?

---

So now you are assuming he was guilty--just like I said earlier.

Prevailing attitude=police should have shot him, he was probably up to no good, anyway.  

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

People who were there thought he acted suspicious and called the cops. When a store has been robbed 7 times, the cops cannot ignore them. Geesh.

---

They were wrong.   

---

 You actually don't know that. 

---

Of course we do. 

He wasn't committing a crime.  The police even talked to him--which is what YOU want--and found no evidence that he committed, or was going to commit a crime, yet you still think he is guilty.

Like I said:

Prevailing attitude on here is that he was probably up to no good, so the police should have just shot him.   

Ohfour wrote:

---

Soooo, I get up in the middle of the night to get a drink of water. On my way to the kitchen, I see a guy, standing in the street, right next to my curb, looking at my house. Now mind you, there have been a few break-ins in my neighborhood the past couple of weeks.

This guy is actually not doing anything illegal. He has every right to stand in the street and look at my house.

You're saying I'm in the wrong to call the police and report him? They shouldn't come out and ask him why he's standing there, knowing about the recent break-ins?

Oh, ok...  Yeah, I'm calling the cops. 

---

Not remotely the case here.  This was in the daytime.  He wasn't "standing there". 

However, what do you suppose the guy is going to say, anyway?  Um, yeah, I was going to rob that house, but then you showed up.   

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

But HOW did the police know he wasn't going to commit a crime?

HOW did they come to the conclusion that he was no threat to anyone?

Exactly what right was violated?

At what point should the police become involved?

When should we call the police?

---

His right to walk down the street without being harassed by the cops.  I KNOW damn well that no one on here would like it if they were accosted by a police officer and accused of "acting suspicious" when you had done nothing wrong.  

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

People who were there thought he acted suspicious and called the cops. When a store has been robbed 7 times, the cops cannot ignore them. Geesh.

---

They were wrong.   

---

 You actually don't know that. 

---

Of course we do. 

 

He wasn't committing a crime.  The police even talked to him--which is what YOU want--and found no evidence that he committed, or was going to commit a crime, yet you still think he is guilty.

 

Like I said:

 

Prevailing attitude on here is that he was probably up to no good, so the police should have just shot him.   

---

 Quite a reach Husker for this statement. This is really kinda sad. If you can't make a real point just claim you know what everyone is thinking...lol. Please provide one quote where someone other than you said this. 

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Soooo, I get up in the middle of the night to get a drink of water. On my way to the kitchen, I see a guy, standing in the street, right next to my curb, looking at my house. Now mind you, there have been a few break-ins in my neighborhood the past couple of weeks.

This guy is actually not doing anything illegal. He has every right to stand in the street and look at my house.

You're saying I'm in the wrong to call the police and report him? They shouldn't come out and ask him why he's standing there, knowing about the recent break-ins?

Oh, ok...  Yeah, I'm calling the cops. 

---

Not remotely the case here.  This was in the daytime.  He wasn't "standing there". 

However, what do you suppose the guy is going to say, anyway?  Um, yeah, I was going to rob that house, but then you showed up.   

---

I don't care what he says.  I want him to know that he is being watched.  I want him to know that in case he wanted to break into my house, someone is onto him...

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

People who were there thought he acted suspicious and called the cops. When a store has been robbed 7 times, the cops cannot ignore them. Geesh.

---

They were wrong.   

---

 You actually don't know that. 

---

Of course we do. 

 

He wasn't committing a crime.  The police even talked to him--which is what YOU want--and found no evidence that he committed, or was going to commit a crime, yet you still think he is guilty.

 

Like I said:

 

Prevailing attitude on here is that he was probably up to no good, so the police should have just shot him.   

---

 Quite a reach Husker for this statement. This is really kinda sad. If you can't make a real point just claim you know what everyone is thinking...lol. Please provide one quote where someone other than you said this. 

---

Read any of the posts by, well, yourself, for one.  The don't directly state it--but they more than insinuate it.   

Ohfour wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Soooo, I get up in the middle of the night to get a drink of water. On my way to the kitchen, I see a guy, standing in the street, right next to my curb, looking at my house. Now mind you, there have been a few break-ins in my neighborhood the past couple of weeks.

This guy is actually not doing anything illegal. He has every right to stand in the street and look at my house.

You're saying I'm in the wrong to call the police and report him? They shouldn't come out and ask him why he's standing there, knowing about the recent break-ins?

Oh, ok...  Yeah, I'm calling the cops. 

---

Not remotely the case here.  This was in the daytime.  He wasn't "standing there". 

However, what do you suppose the guy is going to say, anyway?  Um, yeah, I was going to rob that house, but then you showed up.   

---

I don't care what he says.  I want him to know that he is being watched.  I want him to know that in case he wanted to break into my house, someone is onto him...

---

What makes you think he is going to break into your house?  Why do you get to assume that about someone who could be perfectly innocent?  Do you want others to assume you are going to commit a crime when you are just walking down the street?  

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

But HOW did the police know he wasn't going to commit a crime?

HOW did they come to the conclusion that he was no threat to anyone?

Exactly what right was violated?

At what point should the police become involved?

When should we call the police?

---

His right to walk down the street without being harassed by the cops.  I KNOW damn well that no one on here would like it if they were accosted by a police officer and accused of "acting suspicious" when you had done nothing wrong.  

---

I have been stopped and asked what I was doing by the police several times. 

Shoot. At least twice a school year the exact same officer asks me what I am doing and who I am waiting on and why I am parked where I am parked.

Should I be offended?

Maybe I should get all upset about it.

Or maybe I can just answer the questions and be glad the officer is doing his job.

You really have no understanding of a police officers job and what it entails.

 

---

What it should NOT entail is harassing (and sometimes killing) innocent people.   

---

And neither of those things happened in this situation. So as you like to say. Your argument is irrelevant.  

---

He was absolutely harassed.  He was stopped on the street for NO REASON.  The cop insinuated that he looked "suspicious" (of what, we don't know because that part is BS).   

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

But HOW did the police know he wasn't going to commit a crime?

HOW did they come to the conclusion that he was no threat to anyone?

Exactly what right was violated?

At what point should the police become involved?

When should we call the police?

---

I notice you haven't addressed these questions.  

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

People who were there thought he acted suspicious and called the cops. When a store has been robbed 7 times, the cops cannot ignore them. Geesh.

---

They were wrong.   

---

 You actually don't know that. 

---

Of course we do. 

 

He wasn't committing a crime.  The police even talked to him--which is what YOU want--and found no evidence that he committed, or was going to commit a crime, yet you still think he is guilty.

 

Like I said:

 

Prevailing attitude on here is that he was probably up to no good, so the police should have just shot him.   

---

 Quite a reach Husker for this statement. This is really kinda sad. If you can't make a real point just claim you know what everyone is thinking...lol. Please provide one quote where someone other than you said this. 

---

Read any of the posts by, well, yourself, for one.  The don't directly state it--but they more than insinuate it.   

---

 Hahahahahahahahahaha...you really are reaching now. I think you're a closet racist who is projecting you're problems on everyone else. Please provide a quote where this is even remotely possible as to what I have said.