First of all, the first comment I made was that the OP had an excellent argument, so it obviously wasn't my sole intention to "slam" you. Sorry I haven't been on this site in a couple weeks... I was out of the country. Next time I'll try to be more diligent in stating my opinion before you tell the OP that he is just guilty.
It sounds to me like you are struggling with a guilty conscience. Instead of addressing the issue of your obvious bias towards the state, you start off by trying to divert attention to me by making accusations of my wrong-doings. You like to attempt to discredit my point by making statements like "the world according to Jim" without considering "the world according to the LAW!!"
I'm not saying you are a bad guy with ill intent, but I am saying that you have a clear bias towards the state and you use the credibility of your LEO position to influence OPs perspectives. Had you come here just as another poster, like many others do, without claiming your LEO status... your bias would be more forgivable. Clearly if you were an attorney and represented yourself as that, and made biased statements, your credibility from your profession would have much more influence over OPs than other posters. Your LEO credentials go in the same direction.
This is a site where people come to get help with a defense... not where one cop tells them how another cop is justified in doing whatever he has done. ANd yet that's what you repeatedly do. As I said earlier, you are quite stealthy about it in that you make your points softly... but the message is clear. However, the softness of your points are no excuse for the bias that you hold.
You know, we have had this discussion on many threads. But, you refuse to respond to the meaty issues and stay in your soft, comfortable area of plausible deniability. You cherry pick the issues you will respond to then lob diversionary comments like "the world according to Jim". There have been many issues that you have refused to respond to directly, such as:
1. Your clear bias towards the state
2. Is there actually a prosecuting attorney involved with traffic cases and if not, who is doing the prosecutions
3. The ticket issuing agency has no obligation to respond to discovery in a timely or accurate manner or even at all
4. Your bias towards cops in that you constantly see things from their perspective.
5. Why is it OK that cops won't hold other cops accountable for breaking the law?
These are just off the top of my head. There are more. I would just like you to be more honest in your posts. You should include in your signature line something like, "I am a cop and as such, my responses are focused on prosecution from the perspective of a cop and my objectiveness towards helping you with a defense is severely limited."
It sounds to me like you are struggling with a guilty conscience. Instead of addressing the issue of your obvious bias towards the state, you start off by trying to divert attention to me by making accusations of my wrong-doings. You like to attempt to discredit my point by making statements like "the world according to Jim" without considering "the world according to the LAW!!"
I'm not saying you are a bad guy with ill intent, but I am saying that you have a clear bias towards the state and you use the credibility of your LEO position to influence OPs perspectives. Had you come here just as another poster, like many others do, without claiming your LEO status... your bias would be more forgivable. Clearly if you were an attorney and represented yourself as that, and made biased statements, your credibility from your profession would have much more influence over OPs than other posters. Your LEO credentials go in the same direction.
This is a site where people come to get help with a defense... not where one cop tells them how another cop is justified in doing whatever he has done. ANd yet that's what you repeatedly do. As I said earlier, you are quite stealthy about it in that you make your points softly... but the message is clear. However, the softness of your points are no excuse for the bias that you hold.
You know, we have had this discussion on many threads. But, you refuse to respond to the meaty issues and stay in your soft, comfortable area of plausible deniability. You cherry pick the issues you will respond to then lob diversionary comments like "the world according to Jim". There have been many issues that you have refused to respond to directly, such as:
1. Your clear bias towards the state
2. Is there actually a prosecuting attorney involved with traffic cases and if not, who is doing the prosecutions
3. The ticket issuing agency has no obligation to respond to discovery in a timely or accurate manner or even at all
4. Your bias towards cops in that you constantly see things from their perspective.
5. Why is it OK that cops won't hold other cops accountable for breaking the law?
These are just off the top of my head. There are more. I would just like you to be more honest in your posts. You should include in your signature line something like, "I am a cop and as such, my responses are focused on prosecution from the perspective of a cop and my objectiveness towards helping you with a defense is severely limited."
Last edited: