joelr wrote:
Surprisingly: the woman cop shouting hysterically on the film was not, however, charged with prostitution because, having a vagina, she might have decided to rent it out.
Thanks Joel, DOG GONE I SURE LOVE A GOOD BELLY LAUGH
| Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://forum.twincitiescarry.com/ |
|
| "Smile for the birdie . . . " Zzzzzzzzzzzzzap! http://forum.twincitiescarry.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6858 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | joelr [ Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | "Smile for the birdie . . . " Zzzzzzzzzzzzzap! |
As part of their experiment to see just how blatant they can lie in court and get away with it, Portland PD, not wishing to have their search of a car taped, tasered the guy who was taping it and explained that he might have used it as a weapon. Surprisingly: the woman cop shouting hysterically on the film was not, however, charged with prostitution because, having a vagina, she might have decided to rent it out. |
|
| Author: | Scott Hughes [ Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Smile for the birdie . . . " Zzzzzzzzzzzzzap |
joelr wrote: Surprisingly: the woman cop shouting hysterically on the film was not, however, charged with prostitution because, having a vagina, she might have decided to rent it out. Thanks Joel, DOG GONE I SURE LOVE A GOOD BELLY LAUGH
|
|
| Author: | someone1980 [ Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Better arrest the men too, they might be Johns. And for their shoe laces, you can use those as a belt of a machine gun, or even to turn some semi-auto rifles into assault weapons! 
|
|
| Author: | kimberman [ Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Portland, OR police department works full time on improving it's BAD image. |
|
| Author: | Binky .357 [ Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wow. Incredible. At first I thought this might be evidence of blowback from the Brett Darrow incident in St. George, MO, but then I looked at the date and realized it happened almost a year earlier. One of the things I wonder about this (and other) incidents is, if I was to have security cameras plainly posted at various strategic areas around my house and the police pulled something along these lines, how far could/would they go to "secure" their "crime scene"? If a camcorder being held by had is equivalent to a club, is a remotely monitored and controlled camera equivalent to a claymore? I do remember the one incident where the police charged a homeowner/landlord in a New Jersey incident for his closed circuit setup; they claimed he broke the privacy laws by recording the auido side without their consent. The other thing is, could one "get around" the one party consent rule by posting a clearly visible sign stating "Closed circuit cameras and Audio Recording Devices in use on this property; by proceeding, you give consent to being recorded.", or something to that effect? |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|