Originally Posted by Ike Bana (Post 281648)

How is this not a sexual assault?

Originally Posted by Ike Bana (Post 281741)

Hell, I know what Zeke'a reaction would be to a cop's finger up his ass. Hey! I'll give you a half an hour to cut that out. And if you'll wait here for a few minutes after you're done, I'll run home and pick up mom."

Originally Posted by matteos (Post 281739)

Either way it is a minor infraction of traffic law. One punishment is rape, one punishment is death. Texas justice.

But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Zeke's silence speaks volumes.

If he is OK with the events that transpired, he is OK with those events happening to him.

Ergo. If Zeke committed a minor traffic infraction and was pulled over and then anally probed because he'd hit a skunk a few days before in his car and the officer "smelled pot"

He would silently go about the rest of his day after saluting the officer and speaking these words..

"Thankyou Sir! Mr Police Officer. Thankyou for the anal probe you administered to me. I fully support you in your duty to rid America of this terrible plant from my rectal cavity" - Zeke

Originally Posted by MrPots (Post 281751)

Was that a two three or five finger probe?

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 281747)

If, you know, there was marijuana. :rolleyes:

Of course there wouldn't be as 180 degrees opposed to the pothead you're all desperately trying to validate. Sum? Your fantasy wouldn't even presume to occur.

Key difference: I'm clean, she wasn't.

"Too bad."

That's on her.

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 281752)

If you possess an illegal narcotic, you should take the whole fist.

I, of course, would not possess an illegal narcotic.

She did.

"Too bad."

That she didn't get the fist was restraint.

Originally Posted by Boreas (Post 281753)

A person allegedly.... unconfirmedly in possession of a single blunt's worth of pot is a "pothead"?

I guess it would follow that anyone in possession of a badge and a gun is a "worthless murdering pig".

Originally Posted by MrPots (Post 281751)

Was that a two three or five finger probe?

Originally Posted by Boreas (Post 281753)

A person allegedly.... unconfirmedly in possession of a single blunt's worth of pot is a "pothead"?

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 281747)

Key difference: I'm clean...

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 281757)

Only if you're unintelligent enough to pretend there is no difference between an illegal narcotic and a tool used by trained professionals.

Originally Posted by Ike Bana (Post 281774)

The trained professionals appear to have forgotten most of their training.

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 281775)

Odd.

They seem to have identified someone in possession of marijuana.

Originally Posted by Boreas (Post 281777)

The operative word being "seem". The smart money will be on the word "plant".

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 281784)

Who would plant marijuana?

If you're trying to save your ass, you plant crack and go felony.

Ridiculous assertion on multiple levels...

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 281784)

Who would plant marijuana?

If you're trying to save your ass, you plant crack and go felony.

Ridiculous assertion on multiple levels...

Originally Posted by matteos (Post 281785)

You can't smell crack, it doesn't linger. The smell of pot is the assertion they made.

You still never answered my question. Would you be OK with the same treatment metered out to you if a Policeman smelled the scent of Pot in your car

Answer the question, don't make me start a whole thread.

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 281775)

Odd.

They seem to have identified someone in possession of marijuana.

Originally Posted by djv8ga (Post 281806)

Zeke, you should come out here & run for sheriff. We need someone like you to replace our current soft sheriff. :cool:

Originally Posted by djv8ga (Post 281806)

Zeke, you should come out here & run for sheriff. We need someone like you to replace our current soft sheriff. :cool:

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 281790)

The smell of pot gets you the search. If it turns out to be crack? Who cares? (If we're supporting ridiculous plant assertions.)

Start any thread you want. Saying you cannot detect recent crack use via odor merely means you're unfamiliar with it. Baking soda, burnt, reeks.

Originally Posted by matteos (Post 281826)

I'm not a crackhead. You seem to be familiar with it though.

So if you hit a skunk a day before in your car. Or the police officer just has a lousy sense of smell, you admit that you would deserve to be anally probed.

There we have it.

There is no world that a cop can be wrong to Zeke. Up to the very point he would willingly spread his cheeks in a gas station parking lot and not complain about it afterwards.

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 281834)

.............AND that rightfully and appropriately discovered marijuana on this whorish (no underwear), pothead (possession), female (vagina mentioned way too much for inflammatory purposes).

Originally Posted by Boreas (Post 281837)

No warrant, no consent, misdemeanor amount allegedly found, all charges dropped.

Good collar!

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 281834)

Well, not if I possessed pot: I'd have no standing to do so beyond self-righteous indignation and entitlement.

As for being familiar with crack cocaine? That's called training, the same thing disavowing your skunk theory AND that rightfully and appropriately discovered marijuana on this whorish (no underwear), pothead (possession), female (vagina mentioned way too much for inflammatory purposes).

On her.

Originally Posted by d-ray657 (Post 281859)

Because the misconduct in this case was so blatant, outright support of it and denigration of the woman who was subjected to a "brutal and physically invasive search" must be chalked up to trolling.

Originally Posted by d-ray657 (Post 281859)

I quote from a recent case: U.S. v. Fowlkes, 770 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2014):

Mark Tyrell Fowlkes appeals his conviction for drug distribution and possession with intent to distribute. Fowlkes raises a number of claims on appeal, but only one has merit: that the forcible removal of drugs from Fowlkes's rectum by officers without medical training or a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Because we conclude that the evidence obtained from this brutal and physically invasive search should have been suppressed, we vacate Fowlkes's conviction in part, vacate his sentence, and remand to the district court.

This sufficiently contradicts Zeke's suggestion that the ultimate recovery of pot justified the extraordinary invasion of a woman's body. I know Zeke is not an idiot. Any reasonable person would recognize that the conduct of the officers in this case was not legitimate. The woman did not pose any threat to them; there was no emergency that would have prevented the officers from obtaining a warrant (assuming that a judicial officer would find such a search reasonable). Because the misconduct in this case was so blatant, outright support of it and denigration of the woman who was subjected to a "brutal and physically invasive search" must be chalked up to trolling.

Regards,

D-Ray

Originally Posted by donquixote99 (Post 281927)

Trolling that I'm coming to understand as, often, aggression motivated by animosity. Such animosity is a reaction of authoritarian personalities when they encounter disagreement and criticism, and aggression is their general response.

Originally Posted by matteos (Post 281825)

Is this because you wish to be anally probed?

Originally Posted by Ike Bana (Post 281974)

I completely agree. However...

I need to say that a lot of stuff on this forum, and other like it, that it tagged as "trolling" is not. I remember one time (on a forum full of social misfits and maladaptives like Zeke) being accused of being a troll when I suggested that as soon as one of the complainants showed me even a little actual evidence that Barack Obama ordered somebody at the IRS to persecute conservatives...that I would happily add my finger to all the other gnarly IRS blame fingers being pointed at Obama.

"You're a fucking troll, Ike." Yeh...sure. If we want the real trolls identified, we need to stop using the tag when somebody simply disagrees with us in an aggressive or sarcastic way.

Originally Posted by donquixote99 (Post 281982)

Of course one must differentiate between troll as insult and troll as descriptor. My own usage would actually distinguish between people who 'get off' on purposefully manipulating and annoying others, and people who attack out of anger and animosity, because they have intolerant and aggressive personalities. The first are trolls, the second are authoritarian assholes.

Of course, there is some overlap. Zeke, for example, has a foot in each bucket. And I'd say you fall into some third category....