Ok now I am going to get on you because I believe the Constitution should come first then your Bible. Because the Constitution gives you the right to believe in what ever god you want to believe in or not. If I don't believe in your God or the bible as you do, I do not want you judging me based on your religious beliefs. I can understand why you would want to hold your bible above everything else to show your faith but I think that because the Constitution gives you the right to worship that it should come before your bible. Because without the Constitution your religious beliefs could be banned in favor for some other religious beliefs.
Ridiculous. From beginning to end, utterly ridiculous. The Constitution doesn't "give" any rights at all, it
acknowledges and protects *natural rights* which many, including the Framers, understood/understand as deriving from God.
You certainly have no obligation to believe in God, but if you're going to comment on what The Constitution is and/or does, it would behoove you to get at least that much right.
I never said the article I read was on the side of the cop. That's just you putting words in my mouth.
Andey, Andey, Andey, such a silly response when all you had to do is read your own words which I quoted and replied directly to:
Ah! So because I gave a counter argument to what everyone else was saying based on what I had read that happened to be on the side of the cop...
My powers are obviously increasing if I can reach through the interwebs and force you to type stuff you didn't mean ("just me putting words in your mouth" in case you're metaphorically-challenged too).
Whatever, what I'm concerned about now is that you completely ignored the answers I gave to your five questions. Why is that Andey? I attempt to stay on topic about an innocent dead man who was murdered by a cop, and you avoid it in favor of minutiae.
What I said is that there was not enough information in the articles I read that could make me so certain that this cop was guilty when everyone else was so certain (which for the most part was a certainty driven by media bias and the NAACP). For example, the article in the OP says that Kerrick "knocked on the door", when the 911 caller says that he was trying to kick in the door.
Well, as I have proven above, that's not what you said in relation to my previous response that you're now taking issue with, but as hard as you're making it, I'm going to try to stay on-topic here.
No one in this thread but you has claimed that they read anything approaching what you say the 911 caller is
quoted as saying about "kicking the door in." Unless and until you can provide a link to an article (just one out three would suffice), can I ask you to limit your comments only to what this thread is based on? It is not mine or anyone else's fault that you muddied the waters in this thread with information that none of us can verify you are relating accurately. I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm saying that unsourced quotes and synopses are just bad form and don't contribute anything but confusion to the thread.
I would imagine that had the news articles been worded in an unbiased manner, you wouldn't have had quite the public outrage that you first had.
The information that
we've been going on
was written unbiased. Ferrell was killed by a cop, the cop's department issued a statement that it was an unauthorized use of force, the DA is pressing charges and Mom's heart is broken. What's biased in what
we've been reading, as uncharacteristic as it may be for any media outlet to be unbiased? We still haven't established in any verifiable way that the 911 caller said a word about Ferrell trying to "kick the door in," so why would we just accept that whatever you read was written in a biased manner? Link to it or drop it, please.
I'm sorry I meant to preface my jail experience with your liver disease disclaimer: "this is not trying to make you feel sorry for me."
But seriously...you get to indulge in your personal issues in explaining why you spend so much time on here, yet when I do to explain just part of the reason why I choose the life course that I do, and I'm trying to make people feel sorry for my "life changing" experience? Talk about "double-speak"...
Umm....Where did I accuse you of trying to garner sympathy for anything? What did I say that you are now accusing me of engaging in "double-speak" about? You said,
"I'll go ahead and answer that question for you..." and I answered with a reference to a common interrogation tactic of...well...cops answering questions for subjects and accepting their own answers as originating from the subject. I asked where you learned that tactic and didn't say a word about sympathy. I've asked you this before, but, non-sequitur much?
What's wrong with this statement? For example, I'm certain that there is slightly greater than a 0% chance that you will even try to listen and understand what I'm saying. So I could say that I'm 100% sure that there's about a 0% chance that you'll listen to what I say; or I know for a fact that you probably won't listen to what I say. What I know for a fact is the probability. They are not to be confused with being the same probability.
Hmm....Ever heard of East Anglia University? I'm sure the above formula would come in handy for those employing the "hide the decline trick." If the reference is unfamiliar to you, you're probably too young. (Not a knock on your age, just a statement of, not fact, but of probability.)
Whatever, I found the "I know for a
fact that it
probably" was this or that funny, so I commented sarcastically about it. Are you over it and ready to actually discuss the murder-by-cop that we're discussing now?
So I tell you all the reasons why I'm picking this line of work, most of them faith based and some from personal experience, and "can't beat 'em, join 'em" is what you pulled from that? As I said above, you won't listen to anything I say and you pull from it what you want to pull from it. Selective observation.
Actually Andey, I did listen and acknowledge your statement of faith in a prayerful manner. It's rather baffling why you lumped two different thoughts of mine together and only acknowledged my reply to one of them, and you didn't even accurately understand the thought that you did acknowledge. I have an idea, since this personal sparring is getting repetitive and boring, how about we actually discuss the murder-by-cop that this thread is about?
So I'm still baffled as to why you think what you think about how I will be in my career. I made a statement about something the police can do when questioning you.
In another thread, yes you did. If you're wondering why I have tried to avoid and/or steer the discussion away from that statement in
this thread, it's called "sticking to the topic." You ought to try it sometime. If you want to whine on incessantly about my response(s) to that statement, I suggest you do it in the thread where you made it, because this is the last time I'm going to acknowledge anything about it or what wolf_fire said in still another thread in
this thread. Fair 'nuff, Andey?
Besides that Andey, I didn't state what "I think about how you will be in your career," I asked specific questions about what you would do in specific sets of circumstances. You apparently think a set of questions is a *statement* rather than honest, genuinely interested questions. You're wrong if that's what you think. So take another stab at actually replying, or leave this drivel as your only whiny reply to honest questions, doesn't matter to me.
Blues