Winston-Salem police dept. Duchbaggery.

This is a natural reaction. No body would not go and ask the question. Nobody would not be curious after a few days. Of course.. However I would not be an asshole nor would I automatically assume this person is there to do harm. And no he does not have to tell me his business, nor prove anything to me. Call it a double standard if you wish.
 
Last edited:
Still yet, this thread has been deflected. To what would you do.

It was originally about the cop being an asshole. And illegally detaining this person.
 
^^^and that's how all this began...you can reasonably daisy chain your way to it not being illegal.

Loitering...check
not moving along when asked...check
which then leads to obstruction...check
being a known problem child...check

(I'm a fat kid at heart...can't leave ice cream alone)


again...not saying it's right...but it doesn't take a whole lot to justify it.
 
Last edited:
Exactly, there in lies the problems. To much inturpratation. Especially if this officer has a little sand in his vajayjay that day. I still feel it is good to audit these police dept. Maybe a different way to do it, but should be done.
 
Jeff B said:
Exactly, there in lies the problems. To much inturpratation. Especially if this officer has a little sand in his vajayjay that day. I still feel it is good to audit these police dept. Maybe a different way to do it, but should be done.
Click to expand...

That we can agree on 100%. I'm all for keeping people honest and stripping governing documents to the bare minimum and letting me worry about the rest.

Now can we share some bacon and a beer and make up.
 
UTfball68 said:
That we can agree on 100%. I'm all for keeping people honest and stripping governing documents to the bare minimum and letting me worry about the rest.

Now can we share some bacon and a beer and make up.
Click to expand...
FB_IMG_1425080440133.jpg



:D
 
Jeff is a vegan now...he gave up bacon.
While I agree with his stance on the copper issue I can't understand this.
Other than my family, beer, and p___y there is nothing else I wouldn't give up before bacon or steak. Four this reason alone I question the fine gentleman from Vale's sanity.
 
Jeff B said:
Still yet, this thread has been deflected. To what would you do.

It was originally about the cop being an asshole. And illegally detaining this person.
Click to expand...

i have gone on and on to show the cop did not violate anyones civil rights.

No where does it say the cop cant have an opinion. This cop clearly stated that he is of the opinion that Mr. Goins lacks the ability to attract pussy. From what i gather this is a very astute observation. he also stated that he fears for the safety of the dept as Mr. Goins has returned on multiple days, filming the same thing. On top of that, he stated that he questioned Mr. Goins mental health. Not a far stretch as our downtown seems to have no lack of mentally ill. I witnessed today a vietnamese man who thought he was a talking tree and window cleaner dressed as a 1800's deputy marshall. Officer Rose had the right to detain Mr. Goins long enough to ascertain his purpose and health condition.

Mr. Goins was loitering, followed by trespassing after being told to leave. He became a public nuisance and was disturbing the peace.

it seems all they charged him with was 2nd degree trespassing and a probation violation.

http://www1.aoc.state.nc.us/www/calendars.Offense.do?submit=submit&case=3302014010035&court=CR

and if the officer was familiar with gentlemen at all, which he seemed to know him by name....

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi...turl=pagelistoffendersearchresults&listpage=1

with a record of larceny and shoplifting, one might understand why this particular fellow video taping anything might raise some concern.

not to mention dude was driving around with a ficticious license plate and no registration filming public infrastructure.

HOW MUCH MORE OF A RED FLAG DO YOU WANT!!!!



however, the city has, as set under precident of law, violated the first ammendment right of several of its citizens as it has deleted negative comments from its facebook page.
 
Ron said:
Jeff is a vegan now...he gave up bacon.
While I agree with his stance on the copper issue I can't understand this.
Other than my family, beer, and p___y there is nothing else I wouldn't give up before bacon or steak. Four this reason alone I question the fine gentleman from Vale's sanity.
Click to expand...

Vegan? Hell no, I live off of salmon, chicken & pork (bacon) Organic chocolate beer & oat meal stout.

I am just that guy that wont share... :D
 
Reid said:
i have gone on and on to show the cop did not violate anyones civil rights.

No where does it say the cop cant have an opinion. This cop clearly stated that he is of the opinion that Mr. Goins lacks the ability to attract pussy. From what i gather this is a very astute observation. he also stated that he fears for the safety of the dept as Mr. Goins has returned on multiple days, filming the same thing. On top of that, he stated that he questioned Mr. Goins mental health. Not a far stretch as our downtown seems to have no lack of mentally ill. I witnessed today a vietnamese man who thought he was a talking tree and window cleaner dressed as a 1800's deputy marshall. Officer Rose had the right to detain Mr. Goins long enough to ascertain his purpose and health condition.

Mr. Goins was loitering, followed by trespassing after being told to leave. He became a public nuisance and was disturbing the peace.

it seems all they charged him with was 2nd degree trespassing and a probation violation.

http://www1.aoc.state.nc.us/www/calendars.Offense.do?submit=submit&case=3302014010035&court=CR

and if the officer was familiar with gentlemen at all, which he seemed to know him by name....

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi...turl=pagelistoffendersearchresults&listpage=1

with a record of larceny and shoplifting, one might understand why this particular fellow video taping anything might raise some concern.

not to mention dude was driving around with a ficticious license plate and no registration filming public infrastructure.

HOW MUCH MORE OF A RED FLAG DO YOU WANT!!!!



however, the city has, as set under precident of law, violated the first ammendment right of several of its citizens as it has deleted negative comments from its facebook page.
Click to expand...

ok, you win.
 
Reid said:
however, the city has, as set under precident of law, violated the first ammendment right of several of its citizens as it has deleted negative comments from its facebook page.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not entirely true either. Deleting negative comments on your own Facebook page is not a violation of their First Amendment right. Asking them to delete their own posts would be (and I think that's where the legal precedent would have been set). Since Facebook is a business entity and the WS Police Department "owns" the intellectual property on their Facebook page and can do with what they choose within the Terms of Service. What they CAN'T do is go through other people's Facebook posts and ask them or order them to edit or delete them. That would be Stalinistic censorship and I would rail against that.
 
Reid said:
and thats not some local leftist county court house. that was federal leftist court house.
Click to expand...


And signed by a Federal Judge originally from West Virginia, appointed under the Bush administration (I think). Wow. Just wow....

Must have been one HELL of an ACLU attorney standing in front of him. (or a battalion of them)

So what ramifications can come from this legal precedent? If a police department cannot delete negative posts from their own Facebook page, what about a company? If someone writes on the Budweiser Facebook page that Budweiser tastes like chilled goat urine, can they delete that post, or does the writer's freedom of speech trump? How about someone putting a derogatory comment on someone's personal Facebook page? Is it freedom of speech to call out your ex-girlfriend on her Facebook page and spill about her vaginal funkiness? How deep does the rabbit hole go? The ACLU is supposed to be for "fair and equitable treatment", and having a legal precedent that is only attributable to one group of people (only police departments are NOT allowed to delete posts/admin their Facebook page) hardly seems "fair and equitable". Seems very short sighted at the very least.
 
ManglerYJ said:
And signed by a Federal Judge originally from West Virginia, appointed under the Bush administration (I think). Wow. Just wow....

Must have been one HELL of an ACLU attorney standing in front of him. (or a battalion of them)

So what ramifications can come from this legal precedent? If a police department cannot delete negative posts from their own Facebook page, what about a company? If someone writes on the Budweiser Facebook page that Budweiser tastes like chilled goat urine, can they delete that post, or does the writer's freedom of speech trump? How about someone putting a derogatory comment on someone's personal Facebook page? Is it freedom of speech to call out your ex-girlfriend on her Facebook page and spill about her vaginal funkiness? How deep does the rabbit hole go? The ACLU is supposed to be for "fair and equitable treatment", and having a legal precedent that is only attributable to one group of people (only police departments are NOT allowed to delete posts/admin their Facebook page) hardly seems "fair and equitable". Seems very short sighted at the very least.
Click to expand...


Wow.
Now it all makes sense.
You are either:
A) incapable of reasonable thought
B) Trolling
C) Incredibly obtuse and short sighted.

Ive met you a time or two and interacted online for about 10 years with ya so Im going to eliminate A.

Budweiser is a PRIVATE COMPANY.
A Police Department is a goverment office.
That is what separates this entire discussion.
When a police officer acts he is acting by definition on behalf of the government.

Thats why your company can fire you for disparaging remarks. They arent saying you cant speak those remarks, they are saying you cant work here IF you speak those remarks.
The government, by law, can not tell you that you can not speak those remarks or it violates the 1st ammendment.

Thats why it is an issue for the LEO in the video to silence a man but not an issue for me to run a man off in front of my house.

You dont really believe what you wrote do you?
You really think there is no difference between a state government agency, one whose very existence is paid for and operated out of the pockets of tax payers and a private company that is made by independent folks with the sole purpose of making a profit.
 
What am I missing???
 
Just another example of asshole cops.
 
Back
Top