I don’t blame you for preferring ignorance though, doin’ reserch and lernin is hard.

I woder why when about 75% of the US media is composed of Jews and the 24% Christian, Jews

I’m afraid that’s a statistic there yassar, that you’re going to have to provide some supporting reference too.

Otherwise admit you just made that up.

I woder why when about 75% of the US media is composed of Jews and the 24% Christian, Jews and Christians feel the need to voice their negative opinions on other religions especially Islam on sites like this too?

Isn’t CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, The New Yorker, The Washington Post, The New York Times, everything from Murdoch, everything from Bloomberg (all owned, run or edited by Jews) enough?

BTW, wasn’t it Bush Jr. that executed a retarded man with the mind of a child (both the prisoner and the Governor) in Texas?

In writing.

On the World Wide Web, lol.

I mean ones fun….but if there were say….two of you….

Not that that would have flown much farther, given the context of your reply, but at least it would have kept that turd afloat a few minutes longer before I flushed it.

But you folded like a cab driver in Atlantic City, and that tells me you must not be a trial lawyer.

Least I hope not.

You know this happens to you every time.

You come in, you start sh$t with me, completely unprovoked as always, then get your legal briefs handed back to you cleaned and pressed.

You must be a glutton for punishment.

And you know you’re not getting off the hook on your attempts at deception.

Dude, you CHANGED someones words, to try and make YOUR point!

lol

I mean, do you get it?

Do you see the problem with that?

Do you understand how that removes any credibility you may have had, when you stoop to changing your opponents words to try and create a straw argument, using words you KNEW they didn’t say?

Do you see the problem with that?

And whats worse, even AFTER changing their words, you failed to prove your point.

After all, I am 100 percent confident Professor Turely, or any attorney or legal professional for that matter, will want to concur with your absurd assertation, that a “CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT” body would comprise STATE and LOCAL GOVERNMENT, lol.

But feel free to solicit their opinions in support of that floater.

In fact I encourage it.

Instead of CHANGING their words because your fat pompous ass thinks it knows what they meant better than they did themselves.

Then I could have explained to you, that CITIZENS OVERSIGHT would be the oversight of the COMMUNITY over the law enforcement agencies who police them.

Since you couldn’t put that rubik’s cube together on your own.

Because unlike you, I already knew about NACOLE, and maybe even am a member.

I said, jackass, “CITIZENS OVERSIGHT”, because I MEANT “CITIZENS OVERSIGHT”.

If I had MEANT “Civilian Oversight”, I would have said it.

Dumbass.

no one disagrees with civilian oversight.

That’s why we have local and state governments composed of elected officials

Wrong pinhead.

Thats why we’ve got organizations like “NACOLE”.

Or have you never heard of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement?

Formed by PRIVATE CITIZENS, and they don’t constitute a STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, dipsh$t.

I’m not the one who told you to show us all your own stupidity, in proclaiming either “CITIZEN OVERSIGHT” or “CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT” = “GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT.

That was your call, skippy.

Messpo, CHANGES Bartlebee’s words from “CITIZEN OVERSIGHT”, to “CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT”.

Why you ask?

Why because mespo proclaims he knows better than Bartlebee what Bartlebee is thinking.

Now whats really funny, is that even being busted in creating a straw argument, he still proclaims that a CITIZENS OVERSIGHT means “GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT”.

And THATS funny stuff.

You are right again. I cannot teach this pig to sing, and worse yet it’s annoying even me.

I’ll repost it.

Bartlebee first said;

BARTLEBEE
1, July 22, 2008 at 10:57 pm

And until we get CITIZEN OVERSIGHT of the enforcement agencies that rule our communities, nothing is going to change.

Then, several minutes later, messpo responded saying;

no one disagrees with civilian oversight.

That’s why we have local and state governments composed of elected officials

There now. Isn’t that a little clearer?

By ‘citizen’, I suspect what is really meant is ‘lay person’
ie nonprofessional, nongovernmental, and/or generally unqualified
in law enforcement – possibly even self-appointed…

Uhhh….no Patty. By “citizen”, messpo means State and Local Government.

Try reading what he actually wrote, before you come in to wave your pom poms over it.

Patty C comes to run interference.

The lawyers case founders, and here comes Patty.

Not one refutation or point made, just “mespo wins! Bartlebee loses!” declarations.

You two should consider getting a room.

Alas, I suspect the remedy sought is even more pathetic.

By ‘citizen’, I suspect what is really meant is ‘lay person’
ie nonprofessional, nongovernmental, and/or generally unqualified
in law enforcement – possibly even self-appointed…

Like russ, I think that I shall never see one as dumb as Bartlebee.

That you are “like russ”, is not in doubt here. That fact I believe I have well established.

As for being dumb, if you mean thinking that the term “CITIZEN”, or “CIVILIAN” for that matter, when speaking in regards to the State and Local government, must by definition indicate someone “other than” the State and Local Government…. then… er….yea. I’m really dumb.

And you’re really smart.

In your “legal dictionary”, you’re telling me, that the legal definition of the term “Citizen” or even “Civilian”, when used in context of the criminal justice system is defined as the “State and Local Government”?

THATS your answer?

wow.

You Lawyers must go to school a long time to learn stuff like that, huh?

… do I have to pay you for this …er… “advice”?

If so, I hope you bill on the quarter hour.

But I didn’t mean that…. so “Civilian Oversight” is what I “really meant”, and that STILL means, “State and Local Government Oversight”?

:\

My heads starting to hurt..

Even though I said….. “Citizens Oversight”?

But since you admit you took my words, twisted them, simply so you could launch a grammatical straw argument, I guess that birds pretty much flown the coop.

So you admit changing my words, because by in your own mind, you think you know what I really think, better than me.

—
mespo727272
1, July 23, 2008 at 11:50 pm

My point was that you actually meant “civilian oversight” when you said “citizen oversight

—-

Sorry, I’m just musing on the level of pompous assness required to make such a declaration.

You knew, what I “meant”, better than I did?

And that was that I meant to use the word “civilian”, when I said “citizen”.

And the word “civilian”, ….actually means State and Local Government.

Wow.

My point was that you actually meant “civilian oversight” when you said “citizen oversight

So now, your position is, that you admit what I accused you of earlier, that is, trying to mold MY position so you could more easily argue against it by creating a straw argument?

You are now telling us, that you PURPOSELY took my word “CITIZENS OVERSIGHT”, turned it into “CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT”?

Thats where you want to go?

Man, you’ve tossed the shovel and moved on to the jack hammer, ay slick?

“That means the “Citizen Patrols” in your neighborhood, are actually performed by the Police?”

******************

Of course those two categories are not congruent. One is a subcategory of the other. That all policeman are citizens does not imply that all citizens are policemen. I know this is tough stuff for you so I will go very slowly.

My point was that you actually meant “civilian oversight” when you said “citizen oversight” Not wanting to further embarrass you I let it go and just corrected it since everyone knows that if you really want “citizen oversight” you already have it because the cops who oversee other cops are already “citizens.” What I suspect you meant to say was that you wanted “civilian” as in non-cop oversight as per the definition of “civilian” above. If so, I pointed out that our elected officials meet the definition of civilians because the vast majority are neither police nor members of the active armed forces.

So in your understanding, when speaking about the “Police and the Citizens”, they are the same thing? From a legal standpoint?

A “citizen” is defined as an officer of the courts?

A “citizen” is defined as a Government offical?

Thats what the term “Citizen” means in your legal definitions ?

I find your belief system uniquely rich and fascinating.

You say “CITIZEN OVERSIGHT” of the police, is the “Police”, performing oversight of themselves.

Because the term “citizen” in that context, to you, means the “Police”.

And you’re really smart…..so…

That means the “Citizen Patrols” in your neighborhood, are actually performed by the Police?

Do you get a lot of requests from your clients, for refunds?

Perhaps in your “through the looking glass world,” cops aren’t citizens for if they are, we already have “citizen oversight.”

Or, you can keep digging, if you like.

*************************

Perhaps in your “through the looking glass world,” cops aren’t citizens for if they are, we already have “citizen oversight.” Sorry for attempting to correct your meandering foolishness. I should have known better, because obviously no one can follow your stream of (semi)consciousness prose. Russ was right after all.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Either that or you have a serious reading comprehension problem.

I never actually said “civilian oversight”.

I said “citizen oversight”.

Not “civilian”.

CITIZEN.

C.I.T.I.Z.E.N

(Syt-eh-Syn)

CITIZEN.

YOU snuck the “civilian” in apparently thinking you could change the meaning of what I said to more closely fit your faltering rebuke, just like the right wing trolls do.

And you couldn’t even do THAT right.

Allegans contraria non est audiendus

To run some more interference.

I really liked that one.

Therefore “CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT”, of our police, would by definition, need to encompass someone OUTSIDE of our state and local governments.

Whats sad is you need that explained.

So apparently, I was right the first time, when I asked if you were having a problem understanding the meaning of the word “CIVILIAN” in our discussion.

You just didn’t know what the word meant.

Now you do.

Because you looked it up.

Next time, try “reading” the definition before you post it.

Since we were not talking about the relationship the public has to the military, but the relationship between the public and the justice system, the military definition is not applicable.

So answer “A” is thus moot.

Now, lets look at answer “B”, you so studiously published.

In answer “B”, we see the definition is “OUTSIDER”.

OUTSIDER.

Now, lets put THAT defintion, in the context of our discussion, and my statement on “civilian oversight”.

I said, that there needs to be CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT of the police in our communities.

Mespo, responded with this little gem.

By the way, no one disagrees with civilian oversight.

That’s why we have local and state governments composed of elected officials

Now, since our police, are part of our state and local government, then “CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT” would indicate someone OUTSIDE of our state and local governments.

Yet mespo, the self annointed “legal expert”, thinks that CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT of our State and Local government, would be our State and Local Governments providing oversight on “themselves”.

You know messpo, I used to think your were just a little pigheaded, albeit, somewhat erudite.

Now I think you’re just none too bright.

That ones gonna be a keeper.

He’s really smart and all, so I know he’ll want to “educate” me on that one.

That sure was nice of patty, to come in and run interference for her friend like that.

Not one comment, refutation, fact, or anything else mind you, of anything I said.

Just a general “bartlebee’s evil” proclamation, that mesp can now mutter a barely audible “agreed”, to appear as if something had been said of substance to salvage his foundering position.

Agreed.