@LukeFurryjo@LuisQui86805243 Yea, but like I mentioned, it’s a while different level. I mean, we’ve all seen ATG’s do this. You gotta have so much confidence just to get to that point that I’m sure he’s comfortable experimenting a little.
@LuisQui86805243@LukeFurryjo Nah, like I said, I wasn’t hating, def super impressive, plus at that level, guys are so locked in that he could be working visualizing his opponent and waiting till he’s out of the punch zone.
Hold up, he’s right, police are not justified in beating suspects. No matter how horrific the accusation the US Constitution (which police take an oath to uphold) guarantees people the right to a fair and speedy trial. Plus, even if convicted, no charge carries a sentence of being beaten by police.
I gotta be honest, the situation you’re describing makes police sound like criminals. This results in tax payers picking up the tab on law suits and more hostility towards cops. I can’t tell if you’re deliberately opposing police or not.
@StonerTyDafungi@PoliceThePolic1 What about when they ask you for ID… like Amadou Diallo, who they asked for ID, then when he attempted to comply, they forgot their own instructions and assumed his wallet was a gun resulting in 41 shots being fired at him. He was unarmed.
@G__Chain I’m feeling Loma on this one, but I’d say on the same level is Sugar Ray (Leonard and Robinson), Willie Pep, Wilfredo Gomez, Sergio Martinez was heavily underrated I thought, Lara, Floyd and Roy Jones which both might sound odd, Nonito Donaire, and rn, maybe Bivol tbh.
So wait, your comment does not say “if you’re speeding” nor does it say “and you know it.” It says “you’re guilty.” Those are drastically different statements. As you point out “no one has the facts” which is why declaring someone is guilty is such a dangerous act. I hope you can see that and are accountable enough to concede that “you’re guilty” is an absurdly ignorant thing to say when “no one has the facts.”
To be clear, I’m not saying you’re ignorant, I’m saying that no one is in a position based on this clip to make such an assertion.
I’m not sure why I’m so hooked on this, I’m honestly not trying to give you a hard time. That said, I kinda feel like I gotta ask, assuming the woman did get a ticket for an insurance issue as stated in the video, why would she plead guilty? Even if she was speeding, and she knew it, why would she plead guilty to not having insurance (if she did have it)?
It’s a serious question, I’m not even sure how she would. A person can turn themselves in if they commit a crime, for example, but speeding is a violation and technically not a criminal matter, but rather a traffic infraction and therefore a civil matter. What I mean is, how can someone plead guilty to something they’re not charged with?
This is why I don’t understand the issue when she tries to ask “clarifying questions” of a public servant. Idk, I’ll leave it there. I’m not trying to bust balls.
Everytime I see it this I repost. As someone who has works on the defendants side, this is always in the back or my head. Of course, this applies to the DA as well. When cops behave a certain way, evidence mysteriously disappears, or when people are coerced into plea bargains for example. In NYC, 98% of criminal cases for plead out. However, of those who do go to trial, in the Bronx, for example, the conviction rate is only around 60 - 65%
Yup, even if an officer is “held accountable,” that just means the department is told to pay the victim/person wronged some $. Not the cop, the department. Ofc that $ comes from the people of the community. Also, just to get that to occur, the victim generally needs to hire a lawyer which is another deterrent as they risk just shelling out more $ and getting nothing back. But this racket is mild compared to civil asset forfeiture. Although, at least that isn’t cloaked as some service the police are doing for your safety. At least they rob you to your face then.