That's for operation of vehicles. The thread title is much more broad.A Bicyclists Guide to Traffic Laws - BikeOklahoma
www.okbike.org
Section 7
Assuming he was breaking the law by not having lights after dark on a street.
That's for operation of vehicles. The thread title is much more broad.A Bicyclists Guide to Traffic Laws - BikeOklahoma
www.okbike.org
Section 7
Assuming he was breaking the law by not having lights after dark on a street.
The thread title is broad but the original post was pretty detailed on the circumstances.That's for operation of vehicles. The thread title is much more broad.
You know they are "fishing" where I'm coming or going is Irrelevant to this traffic stop. Write my ticket, I'll see you in court.Hmmm, you seem awfully defensive over a story YOU brought into the conversation. Are you trying to hide something?
Now you know how citizens feel when an officer is asking unnecessary questions and then says “we’re just having a conversation”. Umm, no, it’s not “just a conversation”.
Years ago, numerous people in this thread would be banned for talking bad about law enforcement, no more I guess.Sometimes I wish it was a banning offense to purposely hijack treads (at least it's not misquoting...), and mods would not let it go on so long. But alas, neither is going to happen.
Michael Brown has left the forum.Years ago, numerous people in this thread would be banned for talking bad about law enforcement, no more I guess.
Oh I know. According to Patrick, Mr. Brown threatened to burn his house down.Michael Brown has left the forum.
To make them less corrupt?That must be why I received an application form from them one year.
Yeah, and so much for whatever I see and hear being forever sealed. I've told y'all so many stories, I could write a book.Thanks for posting the 'Law Enforcement Code of Ethics' Snattlerake. It's more clear now why I could never be a cop . . . that thing about having an 'unsullied private life'
My point on the slogan is this, when a Police departments is so content in abusing its citizens that they are willing to parade it around in public, I see that as an issue. I could give you countless articles, citizens testimonials etc. On that particular department, Im not trying to make them look worse than they already make them selves look.This is how they want their deptment portrayed! Think about that. I'm very fair and objective, that is why I have asked some serious questions here, that are worthy of response, it just seems no one wants to touch it, but why?Oh, FFS. Yeah...that's all I see. I can see where you get that after I stated it was a bad joke and showed poor judgment and leadership. This is why we can't talk like adults. Because you can't be objective and you can't even recognize objectivity. I was commenting strictly on the photo incident. Unlike you, I don't have insight into the inner workings of the entire department and the thoughts and intentions of all those who've worked there, or still work there. I don't know anything else about the department. I also refuse to condemn an entire department on a single moment of bad judgment buy some members of the department. Not their proudest moment. But, unlike you, I have a sense of humor and can also see the prank for what it is. And you're damned right I think it was funny.
Since judging is something you seem to do I'll go ahead and make my judgements about you based on this thread. You're a sanctimonious blowhard. You're like a certain poster on here who engages in name-calling and other less than stellar type behavior in one post and then posts about the wonderful things he does at church in the next. So I know all I need to know about you. Since that's the way you seem to like to operate, I'll play.
Enter your email address to join: