TOTALLY GEEKED!

Tinydancer · Guru

RE: Well, at least he didn't shoot him, I guess.

Ohfour · Hooker

Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
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).
Please just stop! You loose more credibility with every post.

And yet he can't see that we are all laughing at his asinine posts. He's Been wrong so many times its entertaining. Keep the laughs coming Husk. You provide hours of ridiculous entertainment.... Lol!!

huskerbb · Guru

I have yet to be wrong.

huskerbb · Guru

Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
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...
When police question him, they're going to ask to see his I.D. Once they have his name & address written down, if he IS a crook, he's going to look for other hunting grounds.

I wish my next door neighbor Dick had called the police when he saw a well-dressed young man walking around my house while carrying a clip board.
"I thought he was okay because he was carrying a clipboard." Nope. Kicked in a basement window. Not okay.

So if you are walking down the street the police should automatically take down your name and address?
Desperate much Husker...lol. That is lame even for you.

That is what he (and you, for that matter) are advocating. Or is it just as long as it's not YOU, then it's ok?

Tinydancer · Guru

Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol

huskerbb · Guru

Tinydancer wrote:
Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol

He was walking down the street. How is that "suspicious"? If that is what is now considered "suspicious", then why wouldn't police question EVERYONE who walks down the street.

ed11563 · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol
He was walking down the street. How is that "suspicious"? If that is what is now considered "suspicious", then why wouldn't police question EVERYONE who walks down the street.

He walked by the same store 5 times, and the employees were getting nervous that they were going to be robbed at gun point AGAIN.

Tinydancer · Guru

He was walking by the same store looking in to see what he could. Why was he walking back and forth by the store? A common monkey would wonder why he was doing this. I love monkeys.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol
He was walking down the street. How is that "suspicious"? If that is what is now considered "suspicious", then why wouldn't police question EVERYONE who walks down the street.

We have stated, more than once, that he was NOT merely walking down the street. He kept walking back and forth in front of the SAME store.

flan

Tinydancer · Guru

Like a monkey. I Love monkeys!

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol
He was walking down the street. How is that "suspicious"? If that is what is now considered "suspicious", then why wouldn't police question EVERYONE who walks down the street.
We have stated, more than once, that he was NOT merely walking down the street. He kept walking back and forth in front of the SAME store.
flan

So that is illegal now? One can only walk past a particular store once per day or the cops will have to be called?

huskerbb · Guru

ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol
He was walking down the street. How is that "suspicious"? If that is what is now considered "suspicious", then why wouldn't police question EVERYONE who walks down the street.
He walked by the same store 5 times, and the employees were getting nervous that they were going to be robbed at gun point AGAIN.

Show me the evidence that he had a weapon.

Oh, that's right. You can't because he didn't.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of December 2014 10:44:24 PM

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol
He was walking down the street. How is that "suspicious"? If that is what is now considered "suspicious", then why wouldn't police question EVERYONE who walks down the street.
We have stated, more than once, that he was NOT merely walking down the street. He kept walking back and forth in front of the SAME store.
flan
So that is illegal now? One can only walk past a particular store once per day or the cops will have to be called?

How exactly does one "case a shop?"

flan

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol
He was walking down the street. How is that "suspicious"? If that is what is now considered "suspicious", then why wouldn't police question EVERYONE who walks down the street.
We have stated, more than once, that he was NOT merely walking down the street. He kept walking back and forth in front of the SAME store.
flan
So that is illegal now? One can only walk past a particular store once per day or the cops will have to be called?
How exactly does one "case a shop?"
flan

They go in, look at the security protocols, find where the cameras are, see what times the store has the least amount of customers and the most amount of money in it, see if they can ascertain whether or not the cashier or others might have access to a weapon, etc...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol
He was walking down the street. How is that "suspicious"? If that is what is now considered "suspicious", then why wouldn't police question EVERYONE who walks down the street.
He walked by the same store 5 times, and the employees were getting nervous that they were going to be robbed at gun point AGAIN.
Show me the evidence that he had a weapon.

Oh, that's right. You can't because he didn't.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of December 2014 10:44:24 PM

Which is why he was only questioned and not frisked, arrested, or shot.

Tinydancer · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol
He was walking down the street. How is that "suspicious"? If that is what is now considered "suspicious", then why wouldn't police question EVERYONE who walks down the street.
He walked by the same store 5 times, and the employees were getting nervous that they were going to be robbed at gun point AGAIN.
Show me the evidence that he had a weapon.

Oh, that's right. You can't because he didn't.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of December 2014 10:44:24 PM
Which is why he was only questioned and not frisked, arrested, or shot.

But we all think he should have been shot according to Husker. I'm pretty sure he's calling us all racists.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol
He was walking down the street. How is that "suspicious"? If that is what is now considered "suspicious", then why wouldn't police question EVERYONE who walks down the street.
We have stated, more than once, that he was NOT merely walking down the street. He kept walking back and forth in front of the SAME store.
flan
So that is illegal now? One can only walk past a particular store once per day or the cops will have to be called?
How exactly does one "case a shop?"
flan
They go in, look at the security protocols, find where the cameras are, see what times the store has the least amount of customers and the most amount of money in it, see if they can ascertain whether or not the cashier or others might have access to a weapon, etc...

Been watching a lot of movies I see.

The average criminal on the street is not going to case a joint for more than a few minutes.

They are going to see if they think it is worth it and usually will act within minutes of making the decision to rob the place.

A person walking back and forth in front of a business, repeatedly looking in the window is about the most a regular, every day average criminal will do.

Life isn't like the movies.

huskerbb · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol
He was walking down the street. How is that "suspicious"? If that is what is now considered "suspicious", then why wouldn't police question EVERYONE who walks down the street.
We have stated, more than once, that he was NOT merely walking down the street. He kept walking back and forth in front of the SAME store.
flan
So that is illegal now? One can only walk past a particular store once per day or the cops will have to be called?
How exactly does one "case a shop?"
flan
They go in, look at the security protocols, find where the cameras are, see what times the store has the least amount of customers and the most amount of money in it, see if they can ascertain whether or not the cashier or others might have access to a weapon, etc...
Been watching a lot of movies I see.
The average criminal on the street is not going to case a joint for more than a few minutes.
They are going to see if they think it is worth it and usually will act within minutes of making the decision to rob the place.
A person walking back and forth in front of a business, repeatedly looking in the window is about the most a regular, every day average criminal will do.
Life isn't like the movies.

And what was this guy going to do with no weapon? Threaten to piss on the floor?

huskerbb · Guru

Tinydancer wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol
He was walking down the street. How is that "suspicious"? If that is what is now considered "suspicious", then why wouldn't police question EVERYONE who walks down the street.
He walked by the same store 5 times, and the employees were getting nervous that they were going to be robbed at gun point AGAIN.
Show me the evidence that he had a weapon.

Oh, that's right. You can't because he didn't.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of December 2014 10:44:24 PM
Which is why he was only questioned and not frisked, arrested, or shot.
But we all think he should have been shot according to Husker. I'm pretty sure he's calling us all racists.

It's not me calling anyone anything. It's your words.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Friday 5th of December 2014 07:30:57 PM

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol
He was walking down the street. How is that "suspicious"? If that is what is now considered "suspicious", then why wouldn't police question EVERYONE who walks down the street.
We have stated, more than once, that he was NOT merely walking down the street. He kept walking back and forth in front of the SAME store.
flan
So that is illegal now? One can only walk past a particular store once per day or the cops will have to be called?
How exactly does one "case a shop?"
flan
They go in, look at the security protocols, find where the cameras are, see what times the store has the least amount of customers and the most amount of money in it, see if they can ascertain whether or not the cashier or others might have access to a weapon, etc...
Been watching a lot of movies I see.
The average criminal on the street is not going to case a joint for more than a few minutes.
They are going to see if they think it is worth it and usually will act within minutes of making the decision to rob the place.
A person walking back and forth in front of a business, repeatedly looking in the window is about the most a regular, every day average criminal will do.
Life isn't like the movies.
And what was this guy going to do with no weapon? Threaten to piss on the floor?

I ask you one more time. How did they know he had no weapon? The people in the store that called the police or the police? How did they find out he didn't have a weapon?

And again, life is not like the movies.

huskerbb · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol
He was walking down the street. How is that "suspicious"? If that is what is now considered "suspicious", then why wouldn't police question EVERYONE who walks down the street.
We have stated, more than once, that he was NOT merely walking down the street. He kept walking back and forth in front of the SAME store.
flan
So that is illegal now? One can only walk past a particular store once per day or the cops will have to be called?
How exactly does one "case a shop?"
flan
They go in, look at the security protocols, find where the cameras are, see what times the store has the least amount of customers and the most amount of money in it, see if they can ascertain whether or not the cashier or others might have access to a weapon, etc...
Been watching a lot of movies I see.
The average criminal on the street is not going to case a joint for more than a few minutes.
They are going to see if they think it is worth it and usually will act within minutes of making the decision to rob the place.
A person walking back and forth in front of a business, repeatedly looking in the window is about the most a regular, every day average criminal will do.
Life isn't like the movies.
And what was this guy going to do with no weapon? Threaten to piss on the floor?
I ask you one more time. How did they know he had no weapon? The people in the store that called the police or the police? How did they find out he didn't have a weapon?
And again, life is not like the movies.

They didn't call the police because he had a weapon.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

No. They called the police because he was acting suspicious. They had no idea if he had a weapon or not when they called the police.

That is when it was determined that he did not have a weapon. And once it was determined that he was doing nothing the whole thing was over.

So. How did they find out he did not have a weapon?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

•22 percent of all violent crimes were committed by an offender wielding a weapon — gun, knife or other object.
•8 percent involved a firearm.
•28 percent of crimes committed using a firearm were robberies, 5 percent were “simple/aggravated assault” and less than 0.5 percent were rapes or aggravated assaults. To compare, 8 percent of sexual crimes committed with a weapon used knives. In simple/aggravated assaults, knives had an equal percentage of use compared to firearms — 5 percent — and “other” weapons comprised 7 percent.

What does this survey say about firearms used in violent crimes historically? In 1992, handguns accounted for 13 percent of all violent crimes. This shows that between 1992 and 2009, the use of firearms to commit violent crimes dropped.

Tinydancer · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol
He was walking down the street. How is that "suspicious"? If that is what is now considered "suspicious", then why wouldn't police question EVERYONE who walks down the street.
He walked by the same store 5 times, and the employees were getting nervous that they were going to be robbed at gun point AGAIN.
Show me the evidence that he had a weapon.

Oh, that's right. You can't because he didn't.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of December 2014 10:44:24 PM
Which is why he was only questioned and not frisked, arrested, or shot.
But we all think he should have been shot according to Husker. I'm pretty sure he's calling us all racists.
It's not me calling anyone anything. It's your words.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Friday 5th of December 2014 07:30:57 PM

Please quote my words if you are going to make this ridiculous statement. I used to think you were smart but now I'm thinking you're desperate. If you're going to read my mind then at least show where your twisted logic came from. If I could bring my myself to twist your words you wouldn't like what i have to say...lol

huskerbb · Guru

Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol
He was walking down the street. How is that "suspicious"? If that is what is now considered "suspicious", then why wouldn't police question EVERYONE who walks down the street.
He walked by the same store 5 times, and the employees were getting nervous that they were going to be robbed at gun point AGAIN.
Show me the evidence that he had a weapon.

Oh, that's right. You can't because he didn't.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of December 2014 10:44:24 PM
Which is why he was only questioned and not frisked, arrested, or shot.
But we all think he should have been shot according to Husker. I'm pretty sure he's calling us all racists.
It's not me calling anyone anything. It's your words.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Friday 5th of December 2014 07:30:57 PM
Please quote my words if you are going to make this ridiculous statement. I used to think you were smart but now I'm thinking you're desperate. If you're going to read my mind then at least show where your twisted logic came from. If I could bring my myself to twist your words you wouldn't like what i have to say...lol

I don't want to go back and copy pretty much every post you've put on this thread. They stand by themselves without repeat.

Tinydancer · Guru

Sure then. Just post one.

Tinydancer · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Advocating what exactly? That if someone is acting suspiciously the police should be able to ask questions? Yes!!!!!!!!!!! You really can't hang on to this indefensible position much longer or can you...lol
He was walking down the street. How is that "suspicious"? If that is what is now considered "suspicious", then why wouldn't police question EVERYONE who walks down the street.
He walked by the same store 5 times, and the employees were getting nervous that they were going to be robbed at gun point AGAIN.
Show me the evidence that he had a weapon.

Oh, that's right. You can't because he didn't.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 4th of December 2014 10:44:24 PM
Which is why he was only questioned and not frisked, arrested, or shot.
But we all think he should have been shot according to Husker. I'm pretty sure he's calling us all racists.
It's not me calling anyone anything. It's your words.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Friday 5th of December 2014 07:30:57 PM
Please quote my words if you are going to make this ridiculous statement. I used to think you were smart but now I'm thinking you're desperate. If you're going to read my mind then at least show where your twisted logic came from. If I could bring my myself to twist your words you wouldn't like what i have to say...lol
I don't want to go back and copy pretty much every post you've put on this thread. They stand by themselves without repeat.

Husker at his finest. I'll say you said things and provide no evidence what so ever. Please post one thing that supports your TOTALLY INDEFENSIBLE POSITION. Otherwise you should apologize for calling us all racists...lol

Tinydancer · Guru

Come on. I dare you. I double dare you to find a post you can twist to support this nonsense...hahahahahaha

huskerbb · Guru

Like I said, any post you've put on this thread.

huskerbb · Guru

Tinydancer wrote:
He was walking by the same store looking in to see what he could. Why was he walking back and forth by the store? A common monkey would wonder why he was doing this. I love monkeys.

Oh, here's one where you are calling the guy a "monkey".

Truth-or-Consequences · Newbie

huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
He was walking by the same store looking in to see what he could. Why was he walking back and forth by the store? A common monkey would wonder why he was doing this. I love monkeys.
Oh, here's one where you are calling the guy a "monkey".

Actually she was saying that a Monkey could figure out that what this guy was doing was worth wondering about.

She wasn't calling the guy one.

huskerbb · Guru

Uh-huh.

ed11563 · Guru

Tinydancer wrote:
Come on. I dare you. I double dare you to find a post you can twist to support this nonsense...hahahahahaha

You invited him to twist, and he did.

Tinydancer · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
He was walking by the same store looking in to see what he could. Why was he walking back and forth by the store? A common monkey would wonder why he was doing this. I love monkeys.
Oh, here's one where you are calling the guy a "monkey".

I didn't call the guy a monkey. I said even a monkey would think what he was doing was suspicious. Reading comprehension skills come in handy when debating...lol

Tinydancer · Guru

That was pretty pathetic as an example. Especially because I didn't say that at all. You should go see if you can find another one to twist...hahaha

voiceofreason · Guru

I just want to say that I LOVE TINY DANCER!!!!

Tinydancer · Guru

I'm glad you're back VOR!

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

He knows he lost the argument and has to deflect. It's classic Husker.

voiceofreason · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
He knows he lost the argument and has to deflect. It's classic Husker.

Quit picking on husker. You know that's lazy and dumb. /end sarcasm

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

I don't know if it is picking or just stating the obvious.

voiceofreason · Guru

Yeah, I'm not sure where the line is either.

huskerbb · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
He knows he lost the argument and has to deflect. It's classic Husker.

I haven't lost anything. Your words continue to prove me correct.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

OK. If that is what you need to believe. Whatever.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Delusional much, husker?

flan

huskerbb · Guru

No. Never.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
No. Never.

Except when you ARE.

flan

Tinydancer · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
He knows he lost the argument and has to deflect. It's classic Husker.

I haven't lost anything. Your words continue to prove me correct.

Still waiting for you to find the post where I was being racist and said he should be shot Husker. If you can't find one why don't you just admit it and stop making crap up just because you're loosing an arguement...lol