This story was sent to us through CopBlock.org’s submissions tab by Aiman Jarrar of Michigan Cop Block.
Date of Incident: January 23, 2015
Individuals Involved: C. Bommarito and Brandon Golden – Michigan State Police
Outfits Involved: Michigan State Police (Rockford Branch), Grand Rapids Prosecutors Office/61st District Court
Phone: (616) 866-4411 (Michigan State Police) – (616) 632-5720 (Prosecutor’s Office)
Area Cop Block Affiliate: There are several Cop Block groups (see bottom of post for list of known Michigan affiliates) within Michigan, including Michigan Cop Block. In addition, if you live outside Michigan, you can find the appropriate affiliate in your area by consulting the Cop Block Groups page or, if necessary, Start a Cop Block Group yourself.
As a member of Cop Block, the police don’t like us and will attempt to stick it to us in any way they can. Well, they’ve stuck it to me, and I NEED YOUR HELP getting out.
Fellow Cop Blockers, Those against police citing people for victimless crimes, college students, the 99%, and all of those against police harassment and brutality, join in!
On Jan. 23, 2015 I received a completely ridiculous traffic ticket here in Grand Rapids, Michigan by a STATE TROOPER. I flipped him off, as I do with all police. Remember, the Supreme Court JUST RECENTLY ruled that is NOT probable cause for a traffic stop! The officers pulled me over claiming I was following someone too closely and gave me a citation…I WAS AT A RED LIGHT!!
This is a perfect example of what police have turned into, egotistical maniacs. I will upload my video from that traffic stop later.
Basically, I don’t have the money to hire a traffic ticket lawyer, and they’re not that expensive. If anyone knows a lawyer, or a lawyer sees this who would do this Pro Bono PLEASE let me know.
I’m putting the GoFundMePage on here as well and The goal of this page is to raise enough money so I can retain an attorney to help me beat this ridiculous traffic ticket.
Aiman Jarrar
Guys, I’ve been a loyal CopBlock member for years and have contributed to your site with videos and materials. Thank you so much for all you guys do, I just hope I can get a little help in return.
Cop Block Groups in Michigan
- Dearborn Cop Block – Facebook
- Jackson Cop Block – website / Facebook / Twitter / YouTube / [email protected]
- Metro Detroit Cop Block – Facebook
- Michigan Cop Block – Facebook
NOTE: No permission is needed to share this post, or any content housed at CopBlock.org. Ideas have consequences – the more good ideas are shared the better we all are. Help fuel our efforts – donate Bitcoin: 1D6hdGKcFfzciJaMSLU6X1Tq69fcCsEh65
Kelly is a lifelong resident of Las Vegas, who’s been very active in local grassroots activism, as well as on a national level during his extensive travels. He’s also the founder/main contributor of Nevada Cop Block, served as editor/contributor at CopBlock.org and designed the Official Cop Block Press Passes.
____________________________________________________________________________
Connect with Kelly at these social networks; Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.
First, most traffic tickets in Michigan are a civil, not criminal matter, so there was no “crime” in any case.
I hope you had a dashcam showing you didn’t commit the traffic violation, but I will wait to see the video.
Egotism goes both ways – and you don’t sound like you regret anything, although now you expect others to pay to try to undo the mistake. Yes, it might be unjust, but it is still a mistake to provoke bullies. Flipping them off is simply being rude toward them and does nothing to argue any point other than you disrespect the police – and every individual policeman.
It is hard to convince the general public of the correctness of our cause when they can just point to a bunch of rude and nasty people that they would not want to associate with and who seem to think that raising their middle finger is an argument against police brutality. Criminals – those who do actual theft and violence – are smart enough to know when to be polite. So do the police.
If you don’t have the will or means to take a conflict through to the end, you ought not start it – and you should not expect others to finish it.
Traffic laws are notorious for being so ambiguous that police can ticket you for any reason – it generally takes 30 seconds before you do something illegal. So it is not a good idea to provoke police from your car unless you have several cameras running, have nothing which could be suspicious in your car, and you record everything (live-streaming from a phone you can afford to have confiscated so they can’t delete it or threaten).
If the video you post (and please include a followup post here with the link) demonstrates you are innocent – and if you can find an attorney that will not merely fight the ticket, but sue the Police for harassment or whatever other violation of your rights because they think you have a good case, I will support you (and expect a refund when they pay damages and legal fees).
Otherwise there should be a section here for “Copblocking Darwin Awards”, since there are occasional incidents where someone provokes the police, and isn’t prepared for what happens next.
There are far too many people who didn’t do anything provocative yet end up in worse shape like that paralyzed grandfather. They weren’t looking for trouble.
Exactly. You flipped a cop off for no reason other than to be a dick, and he was a dick back. Stop whining and man up.
The difference is one person’s dickhead action is just a statement. The other’s is a crime, assuming this event happened as said.
Whatever cops may think, offending their egos is not a crime. False charges are a crime.
Maybe you should first tell the cops to stop whining about being offended, before focusing on others.
Which action? What charge? He may have been “following too close” whatever that means.
The mirror version is when someone who thinks he is law abiding says “I have nothing to hide”. If all their finances are audited, and every corner of their house, and did they get a permit, you will find everyone to have broken the law.
Also, if the total intellectual content of “Cop Blocking” is a summarized “statment” of engaging in “dickhead actions”, then they should not bother with this site. That statement is perhaps “I’m stupid”.
And the problem is that Cops, when offended, don’t whine about it, they look for the most trivial law that you actually are breaking and use the means they have available to avenge the offense. If you do not have a very strong defense ready you will be steamrolled (doesn’t anyone play games with cards with attack points v.s. defense points, or is everyone mathematically dumb?).
Don’t bother. Some of the more zealous here are incapable of rational analysis.
Dude, it’s like kicking a vicious dog, that you know is vicious and will bite you, and then complaining when you get bit. Regardless of right and wrong, and who should or shouldn’t do whatever. He decided to fuck with a cop, and he was bitten. I’m not having a lot of sympathy here. Plenty of people get bitten for no reason for me to worry about an idiot that provokes it. It’s like some (not all, I said some) of the “film the police” crew who stopped getting much reaction, so now it’s film the police while carrying your gun. Maybe it is within your rights, but plenty of other things that are within your rights to do will end badly if you do them. If he hadn’t of flipped the cop off, he wouldn’t have received a ticket. He chose to do so, so now he has to deal with the consequences.
“Plenty of” should have read “too many”. It’s early, my proper syntax hasn’t engaged yet.
So you approve of cops acting lawlessly? That their ego is more important than right and wrong? You’re a sheep.
“If he hadn’t of flipped the cop off, he wouldn’t have received a ticket.
He chose to do so, so now he has to deal with the consequences.”
What statute has flipping a cop off as subject to a traffic ticket? What you are saying is that it is ok for cops to lie and punish people over their damned egos.
But lets take your dog thing a little further. Those kind of dogs get put down.
Seriously, grow a spine and a dick. A cop’s ego doesn’t change his responsibilities to be honest.
Are you really that stupid? REALLY? Go back and read my post again, you fucking idiot. I didn’t approve of anything. I said the fucking moron brought it on himself. I didn’t say it was good or bad. What I said, which you obviously are not quite bright enough to catch, was that they were both dicks. And we’ll just go ahead and add you to the group. Instead of the 3 Musketeers, you can be the 3 Dicks.
And a final thought. Flip me off for no reason whatsoever, and if I’m not in the mood for such bullshit, best make sure you can kick my ass before you do it.
By the way, you might want to consider where is kind of ego tripping leads. What do you think motivated that FL retired cop to shoot a man in a movie theater? His out of control ego. He was not able to deal with someone standing up to his “Don’t you know who I think I am?” attitude without doing something to avenge himself.
You think that was the first time he avenged himself? Or maybe his ‘career’ as an ego nut began by giving people tickets and false charges over his sense of being offended.
Big offenses usually start with small ones not punished.
Filming police and carrying are 2 of the most important rights that fall under 2 of the most important amendments we have. And someone needs no justification to do either.
I disagree. Knowing that a lot of cops are for the most part cowardly fucksticks with a “I’m going home tonight no matter who i have to kill to guarantee it” attitudes, carrying a weapon like a black powder gun, which would do fuck all for defending yourself with, you are putting everybody around you at a greater level of risk. A gun is a tool. Do you carry around hammers and screwdrivers because you can? No, you probably only carry them when you need them. A gun should be the same. Mark my words. The cops / Gov will use the entire open carry gig to further degrade the 2nd Amendment that you’re trying so hard to protect.
Fair answer but we do disagree. The founding Fathers also disagree with you as they believed very strongly in an armed citizenry. Federalist 46 has some great comments. Is there a difference between these OC idiots making a point V. those that do it with no issue? Yes! So far, the courts have upheld it. In Florida v JL, the SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that the stop was illegal. Stating a gun was a legal item and they refused to create a “gun exception” to the terry doctrine as they were asked. In US.V Black, a ruling from the 4th circuit, they stated in their ruling over a stop that “the default status is not felon in possession of a firearm”. I have also stated to T that more crimes will be stop at the moment it happens by those that are carrying. It’s in the millions in fact.
YF:
No offense.
But you need to read ALL of “Feraslist 46”
Don’t just fall for the out of context quotes the NRA is selling.
I have and we discussed it before. The use of the term militia that is used is nothing but another term for the people. Not the police or regular army.
YF:
Again….out of context quotes are just that….out of context.
If you are gonna look to other writings…you need to look at all of them
The so called “anti-federalist papers” ….when compared to,the Fedralist Papers paint very different views….of the same activities.
In. anitfederalist papers….the “milita” is seen somewhat differently. Of course….like I wrote earlier…..you have to read it all.
Federalist paper 46 lays out the case really well….against you idea. When you take the entirety of the paper…..it discusses clearly the need for a militia to be available to be called up as there isn’t a standing army. It’s says NOTHING about idiots running around town with weapons that are only designed for offense.
It’s always funny to me…the pure reverence that people like to trot out for the founding fathers. When you compare the Federalist to the anitfederalist….their ideas are dramatically different. I think it’s anti-federalist 82 (I think…without looking) that completely dismisses @Rays recent and frequent comments about how the Federalist viewed personal rights……as in they didn’t view them much at all. It talks about the Federalists not including any talk of personal rights withing the body of the Constitution….and why.
It’s like everything else. It wasn’t everyone agreeing on everything. Political compromises….then as now.
As always….I want a responsibly armed public. Unfortunately….what we see now, especially a,I gat the CBers and protesters is the exact opposite.
Then we disagree because it does not lay out the need for militia as they use the words, in the summary of 46, militia, citizen and people all in context. The quotes I listed show the true belief of the FF’s and they did not preach a militia in the meaning you believe otherwise they would have repeatedly used the term over and over. In the portion I listed, it comes at the end and it summarizes 46 perfectly. They spoke of the people being armed. Go read the last paragraph of 46 and see what they say
YF:
Wiki is wiki. It’s not complete.
Read it all.
NO ONE that I know of has ever said that the “militia” isn’t the people. Clearly it is the people.
But as you very correctly pointed out….theirs was a different day and age. They had just fought for their own survival and are setting in place the creation of a new government and country. A nation that still had very real threats on its border. And a nation governing itself….one without a King….made up of representatives of the people.
They had a rightful fear of a “standing army”.
Look at the phrasing they used.
Calling out the militia
Well regulated milita
Training and able militia.
And that the milita need to be called out for defense of the nation and to put down insurrections. Put DOWN insurrections. Not be part of te insurrection.
They designed a Government that they hoped would last forever. It was designed with checks and balances. It was designed so that it could be changed through amending the Constitution(s). It has right in it the “right” to seek redress from your government. Not seek a pound of flesh….but to seek redress for you grievences. That doesn’t mean that if you lose…you fight it out with guns.
I’ll point again to Heller v DC. Scalia…about as conserTive voice as you’ll find…say guns rights aren’t limitless.
My point has always been that the actions that most CBers and protesters take aren’t what the FFs had in mind. And with the next administration looking at 2 or more spot on SCOTUS….things could change dramatically.
The common sense approach is always the best. Violence isn’t.
Agree with most but….you focus on militia and the specific meaning many do today and that is the argument against why the people should not be armed and that runs counter to their belief system that we should be armed. Over and over the word militia is used. Just as is the word people and both have same meaning in that very context. The 2nd amendment uses the word people in the independent clause portion of the 2nd amendment. That part stands on its own. The 2nd part justifies the first part which is a dependent clause and that is significant.
In their own personal feelings which they expressed over and over, the used “people” not militia and in that very proper, in context application, they believed that people need to be armed against the very government they created. Whether they were a federalist or non federalist they believed in that as an essential duty in fact. I am not applying a specific meaning to “militia” as I read their quotes, letters and other writings and what they personally believed in the people being armed against the government they created as they knew what governments would do if not check by the armed people.
Even though I agree it was a different time then, that doesn’t change their personal held belief why the people need to stay armed at all times.
You are correct in that the militia was to help put down insurrections but it was to provide a common defense against something as well. If the government they created went off the deep end, the people being armed would have a defense against them.
My point is, you like so many, focus on the specific meaning of the term militia and use that to try and justify why we do not need to be armed anymore. That thinking ignores their belief about unarmed people in relation to the government. I think the word enslave is used.
(I TAKE YOU FOR YOUR WORD IN YOUR BELIEF THAT YOU BELIEVE IN AN ARMED CITIZENRY. RESPONSIBLE THAT IS)
I ask this simple question. Did the founding fathers believe in citizens being armed outside of a militia? I think based on their own personal opinions, the simple reading of the 2nd amendment and their belief about the dangers of government, I think it is a simple and bona-fide yes!
I ask another. Who would be the last line of defense against tyranny?
YF:
Guy…..I only bring up
“Militia” as it features quite prominently the the document.
Remeber….Ive never argued for any kind of gun control. I just want responsible gun ownership and use.
And you need to be careful
In your choices of champions.
The “Federalists” basically wanted an American Monarch….because that’s what they knew. They cared not for individual rights. And it’s FAR different than you wrote above. The Federalists purposely didn’t include it in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was a political
Concession on their part. The “anti-Federalist” mustered enough backing to force the additions…and we
Should all be glad.
As for Heller and Scalia. Read again what
You wrote and you will
Be saying exactly what I did. He is openly saying the gun “rights” aren’t limitless. That reasonable restrictions are ok.
What has my point been in this discussion? It’s that over the next few years….the make up of SCOTUS and all Federal courts could change dramatically.
SCOTUS gets to hand pick the cases that they want. If a newly made up court decides to lean a different way….things can change dramatically.
Think about how much the CBers hate the recent XCOUTUS rulings about K9 use. Screaming about
their rights.
My prediction is that there will be a couple of terrorist incidents involving guns in this country and people will start screaming and demanding more and more police with more and more guns and armor. People wi be demanding the “police state”. I’ve tried to tell
You guys over and over….the body camera thing is people
Demanding that the police violate their privacy.
It’s freedom dying with a whimper. And by request.
And when it happens….blame thyself.
T,
I have agreed with you mostly. As to what I champion. The issue of the 2nd amendment is a serious debate and I simply reminded you that you are making the same argument that the anti gun lobby is making. I am not saying you want gun control, just that you are making the same argument. The issue with the federalists not wanting the bill of rights included was because they believed that the constitution in its current form was sufficient and wasn’t going to do the things the anti-federalists wanted specifically spelled out. I understand their differences very well.
But, when it comes to the 2nd, there is no mystery to me at all why they wanted citizens armed. I agree that the term militia is interesting but it is not and never has been exclusive to the term people. As to Heller, I agree. No rights are unlimited. You can’t carry in a government building or in a school or other sensitive places. Those are limitations. States can create their own rules on carry and so far the movement is more guns, more O.C. but things can be limited but the limits need to be the exception to the rule.
As too cameras, I have never taken a position on them but the movement is more cops with cameras as the national mood towards police is not one of great favouritisms. I could care less if they do or don’t wear them.
Believe me when I say that I agree with you most of the time as people have nothing but knee jerk emotional responses to things and copblock is nothing more than a piss and moan about anything police related and that is why I do not respond to many topics as it is hard to tell fact from fiction!
YF:
As always…..it’s a great discussion.
I am always aware that other eyes see our back and forth.
And I always hope to educate….even if it’s just to expand thought about topics where there is no concrete wrong or right.
I’m just playing the “Devils advocate” about a lot it…..wanting people to read into both sides. To see that the Federalists DIDNT real care about individual rights very much….hence that didn’t include it into the body of the Constitution. And how the Bill of Rights is basically just a political concession. And that all of the Federalist Papaers and the “Anti-federalist papers” we’re propognada and nothing but political,speech. Heck….the dramatic differences within the individual papers themselves ( Federalist 46 is a great example of that ) as the writers are trying to appeal to all,sides within the same letter.
People need to think things theough for themselves. And the nonsense thT is dispensed by sites like this one won’t lead to good things.
The playing with guns thing that these idiots think is cool…..isn’t. The “activating” with guns…is dangerous. YOU may know that you aren’t dangerous….but nobody else knows that you aren’t dangerous.
Anyway…as always….it’s fun
In Heller, Scalia also stated that the term “people” used in the 2nd amendment is the same that is used in the 1st and 4th amendments. The limitations are addressed and are reasonable. States can create limitations, their own rules and standards but those are exceptions to the rule. Like the 4th. Exigent circumstances are the exception to the rule and not the rule.
But let me say this about tis topic. I do really agree with your point about being responsible but that belongs to the people and not the cops. More states are moving towards OC and the gun movement is growing more and more. My whole argument is that even though the term militia was used, it is synonymous with the term people in everyway and no where have I read that only armed militia can be armed. That was never decided by the Founders. Their very belief was that the people should be armed and I gave their quotes why they believed that. To dismiss those is to exclude one of the main reason why they believed the people should be armed. It wasn’t just to stop insurrections or to hunt. It was to give the people the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government if the situation should arise. Whether they were federalists or anti-federalists, their belief was the same on that issue.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/federalist_no_4.php
Saw this after the fact. If you read the totality of how he describes, it is easy to me to see how the “MILITIA” is the people and nothing more. It is not making an argument that we need some regimented, drilled to perfection, unit.
Putting aside the pervious discussions. I look at them as a group of men who sacrificed lives and fortunes to create a form of government where people could be free. The fact the bill of rights was added later is no relevance since amendments are always after the fact
Found this excerpt from a link which I will post below:
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), stated that the term “the people” has the same meaning in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. All those five amendments in the Bill of Rights use the term “the people” to guarantee a right for individual citizens, not just some collective right of the state as a whole. There is no reason to believe that the Second Amendment uses the term “the people” differently from the other four amendments. The claim that “militia” just refers to the National Guard is ridiculous. The same Congress that passed the Second Amendment also passed the Militia Act of 1792 which defined militia as “each and every able-bodied male citizen” from age 18 to 45 (with some exceptions) and stated that each one shall “provide himself” with a gun, ammunition, and a bayonet. The currently effective Militia Act substantially keeps the same language (“all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45”), and further defines militia as: “(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.” (10 U.S.C. 311)
http://www.rense.com/general2/right.htm
To sum up the totality of my position. The difference between the antifederalist and federalist is where the power should be vested. I have yet to find where they defined militia differently. Every google search using “federalist v anti federalist” listed their difference on the constitution and power. 2 quotes from federalists, the guys who believed in a strong centralized government that should be superior to states government:
“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States
“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
I say this because the one thing that is constant is the belief the people should be armed. As I watched Princess Bride, I combed through many write ups and someone had a good position. Thank god for the debate between the 2 positions as we have the documents we have because of that.
If you believe in the “militia” thing. Go for it but show me what I am missing in the 46 federalist. Show me where the FF’s believed only those in “militia” should be armed. I will conclude with this. If you want to say they are out of context, then take that position but all of these out of context quotes are the same from anyone who speaks them:
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
I think that is pretty damn cut, dry and simple
Let add some of these because I think so many who focus on the term “militia” miss the point:
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”
“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States
“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … ”
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.
“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
Sorry if my focus or personal perspective is different than yours but in all of these quotes from some very brilliant men, they use the term people over and over and over and nor do I think they would change that tune today about guns and arms!
“Egotism goes both ways – and you don’t sound like you regret anything,
although now you expect others to pay to try to undo the mistake. Yes,
it might be unjust, but it is still a mistake to provoke bullies.”
Wrong. Bullies MUST be stood up to or they get worse.
There is a big difference between standing up to a bully when he comes at you, and going directly at a bully – without sufficient backup.
There is no honor in whining about a predictable outcome and begging for help from others because the bully won.
There is a proper way to deal with bullies and an improper way.
in my opinion, the proper way to end bullies, is to end them completely and disperse their bones throughout the wilderness. If they’re gone they don’t bully.
Is this how you plan to handle the next police officer that pulls you over for a traffic violation?
if I break the law, I have no problem paying the consequences. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.
You chose to follow someone too close and you got a ticket. Maybe if you weren’t being such a dumbass worrying about flipping police officers off, you wouldn’t have followed someone to close.
Guess what asshole. I just called the probation department. They said you are a fucking liar and they are trying to bust you for impersonating. You are going to prison no parole. You are so fucking busted. You are a proven fraud artist. You are a complete fucking liar so shut the fuck up. You hide behind a fake name and a fake badge fucking piece of shit scum fuck.
All of this from a loser that won’t sign into Discus? LOLOLOL
Post your real name or shut the fuck up about signing into discus, you fucking hypocritical douchebag liar.
My name is posted idiot. Why don’t you sign into Discus? You are such a pussy you won’t. In some way it doesn’t matter because I already know who you are. You are a coward. You prove that every time you post something with out signing in.
you do know its scumbags like you that keep people from signing into disqus.? The only one reason that you want him to sign into disqus is that you so you can harass him. Calling you a douchebag certainly doesn’t cover the extremity of your ignorance & idiocy.
No, as usual you have your head up your ass again. You made several threats over the past two days. One to me on another post and a couple others towards police officers. I already reported it. Those who don’t sign in with Discus are just cowards and pussies. Just like you are.
and there you go with the tactics of threatening again. Your intimidation techniques will not work on me you fucking pussy scumbag.
There is no technique to reporting you for making threats. I am not threatening. I am telling you what I do when you threaten people especially the police. You see, I keep you in the loop so you can’t say I didn’t know. You will not threaten me or my family. That is just being a coward and a pussy. If you don’t like being reported, don’t make threats.
You’re right, you’re not threatening at all. It would be impossible for you to threaten anybody, because you’re a weak ass little lying punk bitch. As far as “reporting” anybody, give it up, douchebag. Nobody believe you. Because you’re an obvious little punk ass bitch, and a proven liar. Asshole.
Rain man, don’t you ever get tired of saying the same thing over and over?
one thing is for sure JC. if I am talked to by authorities about my opinions, I will personally find you.
and you can take that statement for exactly what it is!
Which is what? Coward
You are a coward. You will more than likely end up in jail. Of course you smart off with more threats. And just what do you think you will do to personally find me? Idiot.
finding a person is very simple. Are you so naive to think that you are anonymous?
OOOOOOOO I am so scared….. I already said I live in San Diego. There, that should help you.
Don’t worry, when I decide to file civil suit you will be notified. You see, tying a person up in civil court for the rest of their natural lives it’s just a matter of money.
All of this from a stupid copblocker who continuously wrote that I am not a probations officer or live in San Diego. Hey, what ever helps you sleep at night.
and there was the last cry of defeat that I wait for… “Whatever helps you sleep at night”.
JC isn’t your name, fake ass bitch. And you don’t know shit about me, you lying ass bitch. You don’t know my name, you don’t know where I live or work, & you can’t post a single thing about me which could be verified as something you’re not pulling out of your ass. College Park, College Park, LOL. Yeah, sure, you fucking little puke. Post an address, asshole. Really easy for anyone here to look it up for themselves and see if you’re full of shit or not. But you’ll never post shit, you can’t, because you’re a lying little punk ass bitch.
Rain man obviously doesn’t know anything. The rest of your rant is the same thing over and over. I have told you a thousand times that I do know who you are. You can keep denying it but you can’t prove it. Remember “Ghost” it was Graham Colson. Notice how he isn’t on this website anymore. Anyhow, what ever helps you sleep at night.
Contact me ASAP at ([email protected]) I know a lot about fighting traffic tickets and can connect you with an online skype chat group that can help you out as well. You probably don’t have much time to prep so the sooner you contact me the better.
Man, I’d go to court and fight it. Tell them the truth. Tell them exactly what you wrote here. You flipped off the cop and he got mad and decided to write you a bogus ticket.
MM:
But that may not be the truth. That may be just what he thinks happened. The officer may not of even seen him prior to seeing the traffic offense.
Of course….there is also the high likely hood that because he was so concerned with flipping off people in traffic that he wasn’t paying close attention to his driving.
The bigger question is….
Really? Who flips people off anymore? Are you like a 16 year old kid that thinks that’s tough?
Man you’re freaking ignorant. Check youtube, moron. Unlike your fake ass lies about “page after page” of cops suing people for false complaints, you really will find page after page of people of all ages and colors flipping each other off. But you’ve already proven yourself a liar to everybody here.
liar guy:
So,you’re juvenile.
Ok then.
And yet once again….you can’t stay on topic. Is it ADD or ADHD?
Really? LOLOLOL. You say nobody flips anybody else off anymore, and I tell your stupid ass to look on Youtube for the easy to find proof that you’re wrong, and I’m “off topic”. You’re a stupid asshole, as well as a proven liar. And here’s a clue, Mr Dicktective – You can call me liar guy, but anybody here can read previous posts and see who the liar is. That would be you. LOL. Anybody that searches for cops suing people for making a false complaint isn’t going to find “page after page” of hits. That was a large spew of bullshit. Just like saying I defended child molesters. You’re a lying dirtbag, you never sued anybody for making a false complaint, much less won.
Liar guy:
Well…according to,your lies….you couldn’t find ANY.!!
Wow…funny how you admit your own lies.
I said before that I couldn’t find any, and I still say that. So where is the lie? Oh I know, it was you, claiming to have found “page after page” of examples. And claiming that you’ve done it 3 times. And saying I supported child molestation. Pretty obvious who the actual liar guy is. That would be you. Fake little punk ass bitch.
Oh wow.
The “lie” is that you also,went into great detail on another recent thread about how the one case WASNT won (it was) and the settlement.
You were called out n it then…and have been again.
Dude….stop.
The lying is all you.
T never said “nobody flips anybody else off anymore,” his exact words were, “Who flips people off anymore?”
Nice effort at trying to make shit up.
It takes a real douchebag to say that there’s a huge difference between the 2. But, it’s you, so that explains it. You giant fucking douchebag.
And did I say there was a “huge difference” between the two? Of course I didn’t, that’s just more of your make believe bullshit.
LOLOLOL. You’re a weak as they get, douchebag.
you are a fucking ridiculous piece of shit, you’re starting to get up there with JC. you say the larger question is flipping somebody off, a protected legal activity? You are as cop cock sucking, cum drinking, dick slurping piece of shit.
dy:
Did I say it wasn’t a protected activity?
My point was what kind of little kid are you that that’s what you do. Wow….big tough activist. Flipping someone off. Wow.
the point of the whole interaction, was it the cop didn’t have any fucking right to even talk to the guy. The fucking piece of shit pig was on a power trip. In my opinion that fucking cop should be shot right in the fucking face.
dy:
No…..that’s the story this guy is telling.
He says he has video…..post it up.
Like I wrote earlier…..was he paying more attention to the officer, wanting to flip him off than he was the traffic around him…and specifically in front of him?
So again…your opinion is baseless.
You don’t drive my area much, do you? I’m surprised there aren’t a lot of one handed people with blown out horns.
It is real simple. The guy claims to have dashcam video. Either he does, or doesn’t. But it is a certainty that cops are perfectly willing to behave in this way. Something very near to this scenario is exactly how I got my education on how little honor your trash has. My lesson on who you guys are was far cheaper than others.
Shawn:
Of course
Yours is the vast experience.
And if he has the video…..as so many others have claimed….why not post it? You’ve fallen for that same line time after time. Guys saying I ve got video…..and you never here of it again.
Have you day before the magistrate. If you lose, you can appeal to a district court judge.
257.643 Distance between vehicles; violation as civil infraction.
Sec. 643.
(1) The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle
more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the
speed of the vehicles and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the
highway.
(2) A person shall not operate a motor vehicle with a gross weight,
loaded or unloaded, in excess of 5,000 pounds outside the corporate
limits of a city or village, within 500 feet of a like vehicle described
in this subsection, moving in the same direction, except when
overtaking and passing the vehicle.
(3) A distance of not less than 500 feet shall be maintained
between 2 or more driven vehicles being delivered from 1 place to
another.
(4) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.
History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949
;–
Am. 1978, Act 510, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979
figure out the cops home address and post it. I’m sure somebody reading this post would be more than happy to possibly light his house on fire.
The gofundme link shows nothing, nor do I see a youtube link.