Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    They are supposed to write down any injuries, even if they're as minor as bruises.

    I have to deal with police reports daily, for auto accidents, and every report either has suspected injuries, aches, bruises, anything or they say "not at this time," or the equivalent.

    He did his job how they're told to do their job. He didn't make up any injury, he just didn't know the severity of the injury. As someone who is trained in first aid/cpr, you're told to be overly cautious. It's better to assume worse and treat it accordingly, and then find out it's not as bad, as opposed to dismiss it and misdiagnose the injury as small.

    You really are spliting hairs here. Was their an injury to his jaw? Obviously. Was it broken? No. But at the time, he didn't know that.

    Of course there is going to be biasness, there always is. But the orginal thing I was objecting to was the notion that the officer interjected the players names by himself. He writes down what he's told, as far as statements go. He doesn't manufacture them.
    You're operating under the assumption that every officer has no personal bias and no motivation to skew their statements. Certainly, the vast majority of police officers are good people, but, let's be frank, there are some bad apples out there, and it really doesn't take much of a bias to report "possible broken jaw" instead of "bruises and swelling in jaw area". The difference in those two statements could be as simple as this particular officer knowing Jamaal and Marquis were involved at Club Rio and mentally noting them as troublemakers. He could have an anti-Pacers "thug" mentality. He could be a flat-out racist. The fact is that the injuries were misrepresented on the police report.

    Police are people too.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

      Originally posted by Dat Dude View Post
      This my kind of poster.

      I believe that Donnie W. is more in line with my way of thinking than yours or the flaming poster that your admire. Donnie on the local news stated that players have to know that they are held to a higher standard than most people and if they don't understand that or can't abide by that, then they will not be on the team. Can't be any clearer than that!

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

        I don't want to politicize this, but feel I have too. We live in a different world today than a mere 20 years ago. It is becoming more of a police state existence. Politicians know that if they can keep their name in the news (good or bad) it will help them in any election. Fortunately for politicians Americans don't read anymore, they can tell you who the finalists are on American Idol. Carl Brizzi will gain from this, and he knows this. Twenty years ago this would have been handled discretely, they play for the Pacers and no Prosecutor would want to prosecute a local player. This would not have been on Ch6,8 or 13. Today everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame. A chance to sue someone who has money if possible. I would bet that 10 similar incidents involving ordinary people will happen in Indianapolis tonight at local clubs. Probably no one will go to jail.
        "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
        Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

          I was having a conversation with a coworker about this situation yesterday. It ended when he said "It's stupid that they're trying to convict Tinsley for saying 'I'm going to kill you'. If I said "******* You, is that attempted rape"?

          I LOL'd and had to walk away.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

            Originally posted by Ev_eezy View Post
            I was having a conversation with a coworker about this situation yesterday. It ended when he said "It's stupid that they're trying to convict Tinsley for saying 'I'm going to kill you'. If I said "******* You, is that attempted rape"?

            I LOL'd and had to walk away.
            The analogy's only accurate if, immediately after saying this your coworker started to rip a woman's clothes off.

            Nobody's going to prosecute anyone just for shouting something - it's pounding someone right after that which gets you in trouble.
            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

              Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
              The analogy's only accurate if, immediately after saying this your coworker started to rip a woman's clothes off.

              Nobody's going to prosecute anyone just for shouting something - it's pounding someone right after that which gets you in trouble.
              Who cares...Indy has some nationally recognized problems that count much more then any bar fight. How many bar fights get to go to a "grand jury"? Hell, I know a man that was nearly killed in a bar fight to be told to seek justice thru civil court, not the criminal court system.

              I'm sure there are some IMPD officers that wish some of the scum bags they have tried to take off the streets would get the prosecutor's attention instead of a deal to get right back onto the streets to cause more grief.

              But, as some of you say...Brizzi is just doing his job. Whatever!
              ...Still "flying casual"
              @roaminggnome74

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                You're operating under the assumption that every officer has no personal bias and no motivation to skew their statements. Certainly, the vast majority of police officers are good people, but, let's be frank, there are some bad apples out there, and it really doesn't take much of a bias to report "possible broken jaw" instead of "bruises and swelling in jaw area". The difference in those two statements could be as simple as this particular officer knowing Jamaal and Marquis were involved at Club Rio and mentally noting them as troublemakers. He could have an anti-Pacers "thug" mentality. He could be a flat-out racist. The fact is that the injuries were misrepresented on the police report.

                Police are people too.
                Thanks. That's all I was getting at. People discount words as simple and meaningless, yet one beat later they will run with those words to the very letter of literalness found within them.

                People say things for a reason. When it gives something away they often try to adjust their meaning later.

                And I'm just saying that the guy didn't have a broken jaw or apparently even close to one. Plus my question still stands, what does apparent broken jaw mean? How does something like that look different from a busted lip and a bruised cheek? I honestly don't know unless I could see the jaw disconnected or bone sticking out or something, but we know he didn't see anything like that.

                The guy doesn't have to be a bad cop or anti-Pacer or racist to bias his statement like this. 20 cops would likely have written it up 20 different ways.

                What and how they choose to comment on the situation is part of their bias, some of which begins with just their own experiences. Maybe a cop that had seen 15 broken jaws during his service time would brush off the injury as a busted lip and perhaps overlooked it completely.


                Besides I'm not splitting hairs on this, people initially ran with this angle, one of a savage beating by several large Pacers on one tiny innocent man...you know, a lot like the Rio thing was turned into even though it likely wasn't so simple (and the court agreed that the Dino/Fingers version of the car portion wasn't credible).

                One reason the story was taken that way was because of items like "broken jaw". People discount the "possible" and read into it "might be lucky to have escaped without a broken jaw", rather than "possibly I might not know what I'm talking about regarding this injury."

                Both fit the bill for the phrase "possible broken jaw".


                Nobody's going to prosecute anyone just for shouting something - it's pounding someone right after that which gets you in trouble.
                I've seen a lot of bar fights, and some not even in a bar. I've seen some dudes pretty F'd up in them, others were just a scuffle. What did they have in common? They all featured threats of violence before and during the action. I wonder how many made the court docket rather than just being bounced and told to go home?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                  Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                  Who cares...Indy has some nationally recognized problems that count much more then any bar fight. How many bar fights get to go to a "grand jury"? Hell, I know a man that was nearly killed in a bar fight to be told to seek justice thru civil court, not the criminal court system.

                  I'm sure there are some IMPD officers that wish some of the scum bags they have tried to take off the streets would get the prosecutor's attention instead of a deal to get right back onto the streets to cause more grief.

                  But, as some of you say...Brizzi is just doing his job. Whatever!
                  In the internet/media age, being famous isn't always a good thing any longer if you mess up. If a policeman/prosecutor/judge or other elected official tries to cut a recognizable person some slack it could come back to haunt them once the keyboards start snapping and the cameras keep rolling.

                  If Joe Blow gets a 'pass' on something (other than a politically incorrect crime) then it's likely never to be heard of again.

                  Of course, all else being equal I'd still prefer to be rich and famous and in trouble rather than broke and in trouble

                  -Bball
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                    I was hoping this thread would be put on the back burner until all the facts came out. Why all the speculation by some posters? The same posters who say innocent until proven guilty. There'll be plenty of time for second-guessing and analyzing after the case is over.
                    .

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      Thanks. That's all I was getting at. People discount words as simple and meaningless, yet one beat later they will run with those words to the very letter of literalness found within them.

                      People say things for a reason. When it gives something away they often try to adjust their meaning later.

                      And I'm just saying that the guy didn't have a broken jaw or apparently even close to one. Plus my question still stands, what does apparent broken jaw mean? How does something like that look different from a busted lip and a bruised cheek? I honestly don't know unless I could see the jaw disconnected or bone sticking out or something, but we know he didn't see anything like that.

                      The guy doesn't have to be a bad cop or anti-Pacer or racist to bias his statement like this. 20 cops would likely have written it up 20 different ways.

                      What and how they choose to comment on the situation is part of their bias, some of which begins with just their own experiences. Maybe a cop that had seen 15 broken jaws during his service time would brush off the injury as a busted lip and perhaps overlooked it completely.


                      Besides I'm not splitting hairs on this, people initially ran with this angle, one of a savage beating by several large Pacers on one tiny innocent man...you know, a lot like the Rio thing was turned into even though it likely wasn't so simple (and the court agreed that the Dino/Fingers version of the car portion wasn't credible).

                      One reason the story was taken that way was because of items like "broken jaw". People discount the "possible" and read into it "might be lucky to have escaped without a broken jaw", rather than "possibly I might not know what I'm talking about regarding this injury."

                      Both fit the bill for the phrase "possible broken jaw".



                      I've seen a lot of bar fights, and some not even in a bar. I've seen some dudes pretty F'd up in them, others were just a scuffle. What did they have in common? They all featured threats of violence before and during the action. I wonder how many made the court docket rather than just being bounced and told to go home?

                      OMFG, people!! Talk about picking at minutae!

                      I've pretty much ignored this thread, but I just happened to read this little debate on "possible broken jaw".

                      Thing you have to remember is that a police officer's job is to observe and document. You also have to remember that we have medical training. We're FIRST RESPONDERS for god's sake!! We are trained to recognize injuries.

                      Just last year every cop in the city was trained on how to triage in the event of an emergency, acessing who has the most severe injuries and how to get them medical care first.

                      If a cop assesses that he had a possible broken jaw, odds are it has nothing to do with any bias and more to do with a first responders professional opinion than anything else.

                      I would hazzard a guess that he said possible, because the possibilty existed based upon how the guy was acting.

                      You have to remember something.

                      People like to sue the Police. For anything and every thing. (Hell, I'VE been sued for doing my job.)

                      They figure the city has deep pockets, so why not? Why do I tell you this?

                      What if the guy DID have a broken jaw and the cop made no mention of it? Suddenly the police department has some liability for not doing their job and documenting a felony injury (Agrravated Battery). Briuses may not show up for days. Broekn jaws are VERY hard to determine on the scene.

                      You have to remember, Cops not only have to try and help people and uphold the law, we have to walk a fine line in being held liable for every freaking thing we do.

                      It's all about covering your ***, so if the reporting officer wrote 'possible', it's to cover liability on the city's part if the guy DOES have a broken jaw, based upon his training as a first responder to access injury, and if he doesn't, at least, the possibilty existed, based upon the facts presented at the time of the report and professional observation and documentation. Do you know what the signs of a broken jaw are? Did you want to be the cop who didn't properly document a POSSIBLE broken jaw, then the guy ends up dying cause of obstructed breathing from a shifted palate and his tongue obstructs his airway while he slept?

                      Some of you guys are picking things apart way too much. (I'm just saying in general. I'm not singling anyone out.)

                      Ain't no gunman on a grassy knoll here.
                      Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                        Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
                        OMFG, people!! Talk about picking at minutae!

                        I've pretty much ignored this thread, but I just happened to read this little debate on "possible broken jaw".

                        Thing you have to remember is that a police officer's job is to observe and document. You also have to remember that we have medical training. We're FIRST RESPONDERS for god's sake!! We are trained to recognize injuries.

                        Just last year every cop in the city was trained on how to triage in the event of an emergency, acessing who has the most severe injuries and how to get them medical care first.

                        If a cop assesses that he had a possible broken jaw, odds are it has nothing to do with any bias and more to do with a first responders professional opinion than anything else.

                        I would hazzard a guess that he said possible, because the possibilty existed based upon how the guy was acting.

                        You have to remember something.

                        People like to sue the Police. For anything and every thing. (Hell, I'VE been sued for doing my job.)

                        They figure the city has deep pockets, so why not? Why do I tell you this?

                        What if the guy DID have a broken jaw and the cop made no mention of it? Suddenly the police department has some liability for not doing their job and documenting a felony injury (Agrravated Battery). Briuses may not show up for days. Broekn jaws are VERY hard to determine on the scene.

                        You have to remember, Cops not only have to try and help people and uphold the law, we have to walk a fine line in being held liable for every freaking thing we do.

                        It's all about covering your ***, so if the reporting officer wrote 'possible', it's to cover liability on the city's part if the guy DOES have a broken jaw, based upon his training as a first responder to access injury, and if he doesn't, at least, the possibilty existed, based upon the facts presented at the time of the report and professional observation and documentation. Do you know what the signs of a broken jaw are? Did you want to be the cop who didn't properly document a POSSIBLE broken jaw, then the guy ends up dying cause of obstructed breathing from a shifted palate and his tongue obstructs his airway while he slept?

                        Some of you guys are picking things apart way too much. (I'm just saying in general. I'm not singling anyone out.)

                        Ain't no gunman on a grassy knoll here.
                        THANKS!

                        I for one, am glad for the thin blue line that protect the public at large.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                          Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
                          Ain't no gunman on a grassy knoll here.

                          Although, I did hear that the Coat Snatcher only had 3 fingers on each hand....... DUH DUH DUMMMMM

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X