100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
thats why i think NY should stop the whole "stop and frink" stuff. they stopped the guy because they saw him adjusting his waist band or something like that. since when does someone adjusting their waist band justify a police officer to stop and question someone? note: I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT THIS COP WAS BAD AND AM NOT BASHING THIS COP. that being said if the NY police didnt constantly stop people for very petty reasons, this cop would still be alive. i know the guy had an illegal gun and was carrying it illegally so no i am not advocating that this guy wasnt a scumbag. but i do feel NY abuses the whole stop and frisk thing just a bit. if they didnt stop him we would still have one more scumbag on the street with an illegal gun, but we would also have one more officer that wouldnt have died..... i know its already coming so let the tomato86 bashing begin. maybe less threatening uniforms...  where is their jurisdiction, the star trek enterprise? Portland |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i had to take a mouth swab drug test for a job i had, i wonder it thats going to end up in a government database somewhere. i thought about that for a while but from what i read they dont share information with any third parties. but i guess ancestry said the same thing and look what they did. orwellian state here we come. i wonder if they get your DNA from a mouth swab drug test? something i will have to google. good luck with that.. what do you mean good luck? can you elaborate a bit? saliva for drug tests are limited to detecting the drugs if you used them within the previous 24 hours. If you smoked marijuana 48 hours before a saliva test it won't be a positive. they have kits that extract the DNA from saliva and it can be saved for a long period of time. yea yea i understand the drug test part of it, my question is though, do they only test for drugs or do they also take the sample and run a DNA test on it and save it in some database? I would've expected NO different response from you, T. wasnt meant to be rude everybody has their own opinion, im just saying if they are taking my saliva for a "drug test" and then testing it for DNA and logging it in some database i think thats a little messed up. if you volunteer to give them the sample specifically for the DNA aspect of it then thats a different story. Ask them what they do with the sample after they run the drug test... I doubt they can extract the DNA without you signing a consent form.... But this is a new era so... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thats why i think NY should stop the whole "stop and frink" stuff. they stopped the guy because they saw him adjusting his waist band or something like that. since when does someone adjusting their waist band justify a police officer to stop and question someone? note: I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT THIS COP WAS BAD AND AM NOT BASHING THIS COP. that being said if the NY police didnt constantly stop people for very petty reasons, this cop would still be alive. i know the guy had an illegal gun and was carrying it illegally so no i am not advocating that this guy wasnt a scumbag. but i do feel NY abuses the whole stop and frisk thing just a bit. if they didnt stop him we would still have one more scumbag on the street with an illegal gun, but we would also have one more officer that wouldnt have died..... i know its already coming so let the tomato86 bashing begin. maybe less threatening uniforms...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i had to take a mouth swab drug test for a job i had, i wonder it thats going to end up in a government database somewhere. i thought about that for a while but from what i read they dont share information with any third parties. but i guess ancestry said the same thing and look what they did. orwellian state here we come. i wonder if they get your DNA from a mouth swab drug test? something i will have to google. good luck with that.. what do you mean good luck? can you elaborate a bit? saliva for drug tests are limited to detecting the drugs if you used them within the previous 24 hours. If you smoked marijuana 48 hours before a saliva test it won't be a positive. they have kits that extract the DNA from saliva and it can be saved for a long period of time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i had to take a mouth swab drug test for a job i had, i wonder it thats going to end up in a government database somewhere. i thought about that for a while but from what i read they dont share information with any third parties. but i guess ancestry said the same thing and look what they did. orwellian state here we come. i wonder if they get your DNA from a mouth swab drug test? something i will have to google. good luck with that.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the reason they are so fanatical, is because its an inalienable right that no government has any authority to regulate. its our right as americans to own as many guns as we want and whatever types we want, minus the banning of most full autos which that law is even unconstitutional IMO. whatever the government can arm themselves with the citizens should be allowed the same as thats the reason for the 2nd amendment, for the citizens to protect themselves in the event their government gets out of control, IMO we have already made too many compromises when it comes to our 2nd amendment. You are mistaken in all that. Aside from your slip, no doubt accidental ( saying "no government has any authority to regulate" is obviously false: lots of governments do), you are conflating ownership with regulation. The two are not identical, no matter what the fanatics want to pretend. The Second Amendment itself, includes the word words "well regulated" in it, for goodness sake. The right to keep and bear arms, does NOT mean the right to ignorantly and irresponsibly do whatever one likes. You have a right to own a car, too, but not to drive it over your neighbors lawn, or to park it in the center of the freeway, or even to drive it whenever or wherever you like, or to loan it to anyone you like. There are legal responsibilities that go along with ALL ownership. There's no separating them out of it. And there's nothing magical about guns, which makes them any different than any other mechanical device. There's little sillier than claiming that the point of the second Amendment is to see to it that the citizenry is armed as well as the government is. You certainly wouldn't want that, really. Just imagine your most repugnant and hostile neighbor, allowed to buy an artillery piece, or a fifty caliber Gatling gun, and keep it loaded and pointed at your bedroom at all times. Or worse, imagine that all those nuts we read about joining ISIS from the suburbs of the US, being allowed to own nuclear weapons (armed as well as the government, you know). Just as the Anti-gun fanatics need to learn, blindly demanding thoughtlessness isn't going to cut it in the real world, and just makes a person look foolish, and worse, intent on promoting non-responsible behavior. These examples are the extreme absurdness that permeates throughout the gun grabbing ideology. You don't need nor does the overwhelming majority of people want any of the extreme weaponry you mentioned. What they do want is the ability, as a law abiding citizen to able to purchase a weapon without being hassled or expected to wade through the government bureaucracy established purposely to impede their right to self defense. It is as simple as that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This dude is probably a rat like Sharpton was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ATLANTA (Reuters) - A Georgia sheriff is under investigation after he critically injured a woman in a shooting in an Atlanta suburb, police said. Clayton County Sheriff Victor Hill shot the woman in the abdomen at a model home in a subdivision in Gwinnett County on Sunday, according to police. He was released from the scene after refusing to speak with investigators about what happened, Gwinnett police said in a statement. The shooting was reported to police as accidental and Hill has not been charged, the statement said. The woman was taken a hospital in critical condition, police said. Hill was re-elected as sheriff in 2012 despite his indictment on corruption charges that included racketeering. A jury acquitted him in 2013, according to Clayton County court records. Hill’s office did not immediately respond with comment early on Monday. (Reporting by David Beasley; Editing by Colleen Jenkins) hmmmm, accidentally shoots someone, then is allowed to leave the scene after REFUSING to speak to investigators. how the hell does that work? more evidence of cops being above the law. i wonder if i accidentally shot someone if police would let me just leave the scene while refusing to speak to investigators. and if he accidentally shot her, why was his weapon drawn in the first place? Not to mention that it wasn't even in the county in which he has jurisdiction.. Something is not kosher here.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for pain and suffering.. How did I make you suffer? you didn't I was joking |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for pain and suffering..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
urbanexchange asked >>> If those officers are convicted of murder, what would happen to their pensions? Hmmm, interesting question and as I thought this was unilaterally covered under their Police Union Rules & guidelines --- It's not! SHOCKED ME...but here's something from 2010 in Philadelphia that they were discussing about this very issue and crocked cops >>> PhillyConfidential Should criminal cops lose their pensions? I've fielded a ton of calls and e-mails in the last few days from readers who are angry about city cops who are keeping their pension benefits even after they've been fired from the force or arrested for committing serious crimes. One reader asked today, "Can't you find out if anyone is going to do something about this?" Here's an excerpt of the answer that will appear in tomorrow's Daily News: One after another, stories about bad cops have fallen around the city like dominoes lately, each one more disturbing than the next. There has, however, been one common thread: many of those who have been fired from the force or arrested have had no fear of losing their pension. Some of accused face charges that range from murder to rape to soliciting sex from a minor. As it stands now, the city code doesn't call for a city employee - be it a cop, firefighter or trash collector - to lose his pension, even if he's convicted of one of those crimes. Count City Councilman Frank Rizzo among those who are wondering if the code needs to be changed. "I just began discussing this my staff today," Rizzo said earlier today. "It's something that we're going to look into after the [city] budget is finished," he said. "We'll probably have to hold hearings. ." Rizzo said he was bothered by a recent spate of stories about cops who have retired from the force a day before they were arrested. Many have interpreted the sudden retirements as last ditch attempts on the cops' behalf at saving their pension benefits. Officer Anthony Floyd, a 14-year veteran, retired on Tuesday, and was charged the following day with assaulting and harassing a woman he was dating. Another longtime cop, Tyrone Wiggins, retired a day before he was arrested on rape charges in November. "We can't have cops retiring one day, then getting arrested the next," Rizzo said. Even cops fired for gross misconduct are not blocked from receiving a pension. Also this week, Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey fired Sgt. Robert Ralston after the 21-year veteran admitted that he shot himself last month and created a phony story about being shot by a black man with corn rows. Chapter 22-1300 of the city code states that a city employee could lose retirement benefits only if he or she pleads or is found guilty of perjury; accepting or offering a bribe; engaging in graft or corruption; theft, embezzlement or willful misapplication of city funds; malfeasance in office or engaging in conspiracy to commit any of the above. Former city managing director Phil Goldsmith said that the city code should be amended to include harsh penalties for employees who committed serious felonies. "If someone has violated the public's trust, they should lose their benefits," he said. http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/dncrime/Should_criminal_cops_lose_their_pension_.html#Ir21524F2qRuXWwP.99 So...if some of these 6 think they're more apt to be found copeable then the rest they may opt out for an early retirement and skate under any penalties if this city has the same problem that Philly does! So this means that the local government are trying to defund pensions by convicting them. The only difference in the Baltimore case is that 3 cops are Caucasian: 3 cops are African American. I know at least 2 of them has been on the force since the 90s: at a time when pension contributions were relatively low. I looked up the contract and you only need 5 years in service to be eligible for a pension. They would not be eligible for th 5 years if they are fired though. They would not be eligible for full benefits after five year. i.e. health life, etc and only a portion of salary. They must retire to rceive it not go on suspensiom or be fired. I didn't see any list of disqualifications.. The city site has the requirements and benefits listed. That's right they are city cops not state, my bad. now you owe me... haha |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe Mark Zuckerberg could fly over there and launch a television campaign explaining the moral justification for allowing open borders and unfettered immigration..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
urbanexchange asked >>> If those officers are convicted of murder, what would happen to their pensions? Hmmm, interesting question and as I thought this was unilaterally covered under their Police Union Rules & guidelines --- It's not! SHOCKED ME...but here's something from 2010 in Philadelphia that they were discussing about this very issue and crocked cops >>> PhillyConfidential Should criminal cops lose their pensions? I've fielded a ton of calls and e-mails in the last few days from readers who are angry about city cops who are keeping their pension benefits even after they've been fired from the force or arrested for committing serious crimes. One reader asked today, "Can't you find out if anyone is going to do something about this?" Here's an excerpt of the answer that will appear in tomorrow's Daily News: One after another, stories about bad cops have fallen around the city like dominoes lately, each one more disturbing than the next. There has, however, been one common thread: many of those who have been fired from the force or arrested have had no fear of losing their pension. Some of accused face charges that range from murder to rape to soliciting sex from a minor. As it stands now, the city code doesn't call for a city employee - be it a cop, firefighter or trash collector - to lose his pension, even if he's convicted of one of those crimes. Count City Councilman Frank Rizzo among those who are wondering if the code needs to be changed. "I just began discussing this my staff today," Rizzo said earlier today. "It's something that we're going to look into after the [city] budget is finished," he said. "We'll probably have to hold hearings. ." Rizzo said he was bothered by a recent spate of stories about cops who have retired from the force a day before they were arrested. Many have interpreted the sudden retirements as last ditch attempts on the cops' behalf at saving their pension benefits. Officer Anthony Floyd, a 14-year veteran, retired on Tuesday, and was charged the following day with assaulting and harassing a woman he was dating. Another longtime cop, Tyrone Wiggins, retired a day before he was arrested on rape charges in November. "We can't have cops retiring one day, then getting arrested the next," Rizzo said. Even cops fired for gross misconduct are not blocked from receiving a pension. Also this week, Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey fired Sgt. Robert Ralston after the 21-year veteran admitted that he shot himself last month and created a phony story about being shot by a black man with corn rows. Chapter 22-1300 of the city code states that a city employee could lose retirement benefits only if he or she pleads or is found guilty of perjury; accepting or offering a bribe; engaging in graft or corruption; theft, embezzlement or willful misapplication of city funds; malfeasance in office or engaging in conspiracy to commit any of the above. Former city managing director Phil Goldsmith said that the city code should be amended to include harsh penalties for employees who committed serious felonies. "If someone has violated the public's trust, they should lose their benefits," he said. http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/dncrime/Should_criminal_cops_lose_their_pension_.html#Ir21524F2qRuXWwP.99 So...if some of these 6 think they're more apt to be found copeable then the rest they may opt out for an early retirement and skate under any penalties if this city has the same problem that Philly does! So this means that the local government are trying to defund pensions by convicting them. The only difference in the Baltimore case is that 3 cops are Caucasian: 3 cops are African American. I know at least 2 of them has been on the force since the 90s: at a time when pension contributions were relatively low. I looked up the contract and you only need 5 years in service to be eligible for a pension. They would not be eligible for th 5 years if they are fired though. They would not be eligible for full benefits after five year. i.e. health life, etc and only a portion of salary. They must retire to rceive it not go on suspensiom or be fired. I didn't see any list of disqualifications.. The city site has the requirements and benefits listed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
urbanexchange asked >>> If those officers are convicted of murder, what would happen to their pensions? Hmmm, interesting question and as I thought this was unilaterally covered under their Police Union Rules & guidelines --- It's not! SHOCKED ME...but here's something from 2010 in Philadelphia that they were discussing about this very issue and crocked cops >>> PhillyConfidential Should criminal cops lose their pensions? I've fielded a ton of calls and e-mails in the last few days from readers who are angry about city cops who are keeping their pension benefits even after they've been fired from the force or arrested for committing serious crimes. One reader asked today, "Can't you find out if anyone is going to do something about this?" Here's an excerpt of the answer that will appear in tomorrow's Daily News: One after another, stories about bad cops have fallen around the city like dominoes lately, each one more disturbing than the next. There has, however, been one common thread: many of those who have been fired from the force or arrested have had no fear of losing their pension. Some of accused face charges that range from murder to rape to soliciting sex from a minor. As it stands now, the city code doesn't call for a city employee - be it a cop, firefighter or trash collector - to lose his pension, even if he's convicted of one of those crimes. Count City Councilman Frank Rizzo among those who are wondering if the code needs to be changed. "I just began discussing this my staff today," Rizzo said earlier today. "It's something that we're going to look into after the [city] budget is finished," he said. "We'll probably have to hold hearings. ." Rizzo said he was bothered by a recent spate of stories about cops who have retired from the force a day before they were arrested. Many have interpreted the sudden retirements as last ditch attempts on the cops' behalf at saving their pension benefits. Officer Anthony Floyd, a 14-year veteran, retired on Tuesday, and was charged the following day with assaulting and harassing a woman he was dating. Another longtime cop, Tyrone Wiggins, retired a day before he was arrested on rape charges in November. "We can't have cops retiring one day, then getting arrested the next," Rizzo said. Even cops fired for gross misconduct are not blocked from receiving a pension. Also this week, Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey fired Sgt. Robert Ralston after the 21-year veteran admitted that he shot himself last month and created a phony story about being shot by a black man with corn rows. Chapter 22-1300 of the city code states that a city employee could lose retirement benefits only if he or she pleads or is found guilty of perjury; accepting or offering a bribe; engaging in graft or corruption; theft, embezzlement or willful misapplication of city funds; malfeasance in office or engaging in conspiracy to commit any of the above. Former city managing director Phil Goldsmith said that the city code should be amended to include harsh penalties for employees who committed serious felonies. "If someone has violated the public's trust, they should lose their benefits," he said. http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/dncrime/Should_criminal_cops_lose_their_pension_.html#Ir21524F2qRuXWwP.99 So...if some of these 6 think they're more apt to be found copeable then the rest they may opt out for an early retirement and skate under any penalties if this city has the same problem that Philly does! So this means that the local government are trying to defund pensions by convicting them. The only difference in the Baltimore case is that 3 cops are Caucasian: 3 cops are African American. I know at least 2 of them has been on the force since the 90s: at a time when pension contributions were relatively low. I looked up the contract and you only need 5 years in service to be eligible for a pension. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If those officers are convicted of murder, what would happen to their pensions? It varies by state. In Maryland? Does the state get back all the money that pensioner put in or the family? If they have more than 10 years of service they will collect the pension as far as I know. They can retire before they are sentenced and then definitely collect it. Even if they have to do a prison sentence? I always thought that the state have to recuperate any acquired assets to offset the money it would cost to do a prison sentence. Maryland is a very pro union state as is Baltimore City. I would have to look at the police union contract with the city to be sure, but I seriously doubt they lose their pensions if convicted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If those officers are convicted of murder, what would happen to their pensions? It varies by state. In Maryland? Does the state get back all the money that pensioner put in or the family? If they have more than 10 years of service they will collect the pension as far as I know. They can retire before they are sentenced and then definitely collect it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If those officers are convicted of murder, what would happen to their pensions? It varies by state. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cops have their own color,, blue I doubt you would type that if they were all white.. Because there is an agenda... here in Mingle2 & in the USA. We have gone from, " THESE United States of THE AMERICAS (s) to THE United States of America." From " To the REPUBLIC for which it stands, ONE nation under GOD" to America A DEMOCRACY" And now from" ILLEGAL ALIENS (or illegal immigrants) to UNDOCUMENTED AMERICANS. "  Word play is not a play people. It is a psychological strategic tactic. Of course it. We see it here daily. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ahahaha what does drugs in his system have to do with this? ok so because he had drugs in his system, that caused him to sever his own spine? that is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard. just more of the police trying to smeer his character and take the spotlight off them. i dont care what drugs you have in your system, your not going to puprosely sever your own spine, that is just ridiculous. I agree with the drugs don't matter but I have seen plenty of videos of people on pcp that do all kinds of crazy **** including slicing themselves open.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cops have their own color,, blue I doubt you would type that if they were all white.. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
