Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

profiling! sans hoodies, ice tea or skittles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by 03trubluGT View Post
    Do you really think it's reasonable to protect a bank's property when you don't even know who the bank is? How would you reasonably believe that the bank has requested protection of the land or property?

    You're operating under an awful big ASSumption that they knew the house had been foreclosed on. That's not something your neighbors really offer up in passing. For all they knew, the neighbors could have been trying to sell it. And until it comes out that they knew it was a foreclosed property, it's just that. An assumption.


    Originally posted by 03trubluGT View Post
    WTF are you trying to say? I didn't even address that part,
    I'm saying it's a typical deflection by you to place blame with anyone but the police, because clearly, they never fuck anything up royally. LOL @ you talking about anyone blolwing shit out of their mouth...
    Originally posted by BradM
    But, just like condoms and women's rights, I don't believe in them.
    Originally posted by Leah
    In other news: Brent's meat melts in your mouth.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by 03trubluGT View Post
      Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
      (1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
      (2) the actor reasonably believes that:
      (A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
      (B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
      (C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

      Do you really think it's reasonable to protect a bank's property when you don't even know who the bank is? How would you reasonably believe that the bank has requested protection of the land or property?
      Part 1 OR Part 2 has to be satisfied, not both.
      Originally posted by Broncojohnny
      HOORAY ME and FUCK YOU!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by bcoop View Post
        You're operating under an awful big ASSumption that they knew the house had been foreclosed on. That's not something your neighbors really offer up in passing. For all they knew, the neighbors could have been trying to sell it. And until it comes out that they knew it was a foreclosed property, it's just that. An assumption.




        I'm saying it's a typical deflection by you to place blame with anyone but the police, because clearly, they never fuck anything up royally. LOL @ you talking about anyone blolwing shit out of their mouth...
        Your assumption is more grandiose than mine. A vacant house is just a building no matter if it is for sale, or foreclosed.

        You are just making an effort to be an ass. I did no such thing as deflect or minimize the police misconduct, in fact I did not even address it. I'm actually trying to be less antagonistic these days, but you assholes won't let me.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Nash B. View Post
          Part 1 OR Part 2 has to be satisfied, not both.
          No shit, really?

          I hope you don't practice this kind of belief, because you are opening yourself up to one huge civil and criminal action.

          Comment


          • #35
            I just think it is strange that:
            - The neighbors couldn't do the slightest bit of investigating before pulling out guns and putting them to their heads.
            - They showed up at night with no proof that they had bought the house. Not a shred of proof? Not a flyer in their car? A single bit of paperwork? A business card from the bank or realtor? Nothing?
            - The police couldn't manage to ask them for the name of anyone at the title company, the bank or the agents office? They couldn't even take the time to look at the internet and see if the house was for sale? Nothing? Seems real fucking lazy

            The whole thing seems to me like a situation when stupid meets even more stupid and they both crash into lazy. When three turds collide this is what you get. They should all sue themselves.
            Originally posted by racrguy
            What's your beef with NPR, because their listeners are typically more informed than others?
            Originally posted by racrguy
            Voting is a constitutional right, overthrowing the government isn't.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Broncojohnny View Post
              I just think it is strange that:
              - The neighbors couldn't do the slightest bit of investigating before pulling out guns and putting them to their heads.
              - They showed up at night with no proof that they had bought the house. Not a shred of proof? Not a flyer in their car? A single bit of paperwork? A business card from the bank or realtor? Nothing?
              - The police couldn't manage to ask them for the name of anyone at the title company, the bank or the agents office? They couldn't even take the time to look at the internet and see if the house was for sale? Nothing? Seems real fucking lazy

              The whole thing seems to me like a situation when stupid meets even more stupid and they both crash into lazy. When three turds collide this is what you get. They should all sue themselves.

              I think your aim with the hammer is good today.

              Comment


              • #37
                At this point its not even about the crime anymore. Now its just a media fiasco with people on both sides only caring about winning their arguement. Its become just stupid now.

                Comment


                • #38
                  They should have called the cops and left it at that.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by mikec View Post
                    WRONG!

                    It was a house that had recently been purchased. lol
                    Originally posted by ELVIS View Post
                    The Newton County Sheriff’s Office is investigating why a couple was confronted at gunpoint by neighbors and then arrested and forced to spend the night in jail when they tried to move into the home they had just purchased, Channel 2 Action News reported.

                    Enlarge photo Channel 2 Action News Jean Kalonji, an immigrant from the Congo, said that being confronted by armed neighbors brought back painful memories.

                    .The Kalonji family had just closed on a foreclosed home and were told by their real estate agent they should go over to the house and change the locks.
                    Why so quick to correct?

                    It was at one time foreclosed, so I'm right.


                    SUCK IT!


                    My point is that there is no way a neighbor is going to know that a house that was foreclosed has just been purchased.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Lol! Matt is just freakin' volatile these days!
                      www.allforoneroofing.com

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by racrguy View Post
                        It is reasonable what the neighbors did. People were fumbling around the house, they didn't know them, better go investigate. However, they should not have been taken to jail. A small amount of investigation done by the cops would have the matter all straightened out, but apparently that's too much to ask.
                        Wasnt sure this was going to happen, but i gotta agree with ya

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by mikec View Post
                          Lol! Matt is just freakin' volatile these days!
                          Why is he so confrontational?
                          Originally posted by BradM
                          But, just like condoms and women's rights, I don't believe in them.
                          Originally posted by Leah
                          In other news: Brent's meat melts in your mouth.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by bcoop View Post
                            Why is he so confrontational?
                            Keep poking the cage Junior...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by bcoop View Post
                              Why is he so confrontational?
                              Clearly a lack of pussy.

                              Hey Matt, if you go rub one out or pull a Secret Service stunt I'm sure a lot of that pent up anger will be released.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by 03trubluGT View Post
                                Keep poking the cage Junior...
                                Lmao!
                                Originally posted by BradM
                                But, just like condoms and women's rights, I don't believe in them.
                                Originally posted by Leah
                                In other news: Brent's meat melts in your mouth.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X