Richmond Cops Rob Cars

[Jonti]

... But, then again, I'm not a cunt loser ...

 

[detective-boy]

It fucking well is.

It isn't.

You are talking about:

... no liability in negligence would attach to a police officer who either didn't lock the car door, or who didn't retrieve and 'secure', whatever objects might be visible within the car.

I'm talking about an officer who decides to do actually do something and then does it negligently.

That is NOT the same fucking thing at all ...

It's not not doing something. It's doing something but doing it negligently.

 

[Pickman's model]

it's been interesting to see d-b talking for page after page about cops' duty to act about people leaving their cars unlocked: but it's put into perspective when far more serious incidents - incidents reported to the police, but about which they do nothing - result in avoidable tragedy

A mother who apparently killed herself and her disabled daughter by setting fire to their car had faced years of abuse from youths and children, but police "did nothing" despite her repeated pleas for help, an inquest heard today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/17/harassed-family-police-inaction-blamed

if this isn't the sort of thing the police should be acting on, what is?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It isn't.

You are talking about:



I'm talking about an officer who decides to do actually do something and then does it negligently.

That is NOT the same fucking thing at all ...

It's not not doing something. It's doing something but doing it negligently.

Go back and reread the case law. Perhaps you skimmed it first time through.

I know you're consitutionally incapable of admitting error, so what is the point of continuing this further?

 

[detective-boy]

it's been interesting to see d-b talking for page after page about cops' duty to act about people leaving their cars unlocked:

Not as interesting as seeing you talking for page after page about something I'm NOT actually fucking talking about at all ...

 

[detective-boy]

Go back and reread the case law. Perhaps you skimmed it first time through.

I know you're consitutionally incapable of admitting error, so what is the point of continuing this further?

I've read it. I've read it properly. It is in agreement with everything I have said. YOU are the one who is misunderstanding it if you think otherwise. If you are too fucking pompous to actually point out the bit you claim contradicts me, I certainly can't be arsed to guess.

I am quite happy to admit I am wrong if I am. But I am not happy to play your stupid little games. And I will certainly not admit I am wrong if I am not, even if you are so fucking thick you think I am.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not as interesting as seeing you talking for page after page about something I'm NOT actually fucking talking about at all ...

and there was me thinking your vocabulary was as wide as father jack's.