Civil Lawsuit Update: Cox’s Attorney’s respond to $1.35M lawsuit(Updated 12/11/15)

McKenney ordered him from his car, attempted to pull a cell phone from his hands because Cox was video recording the interaction, obstructed the collection of evidence and violated Cox's First and Fourth Amendment Rights.

“McKenney ordered him from his car, attempted to pull a cell phone from his hands because Cox was video recording the interaction, obstructed the collection of evidence and violated Cox’s First and Fourth Amendment Rights.”

(SEE TWO UPDATES REGARDING CASE AT BOTTOM OF ARTICLE)

On June 20th, Virginia Cop Block published the news about Virginia State Trooper Melanie McKenney filing yet another Civil Lawsuit against Virginia Cop Block Founder Nathan Cox; going from a $5K lawsuit to now a $1.35 Million dollar lawsuit.

Cox’s Attorney’s over at Thomas Robert’s and Associates located in Richmond have come out of the gates swinging filing two pleadings along with their own exhibits in hopes of getting this frivolous lawsuit dismissed, this time for good.

The first pleading covers the Statute of Limitations.
Taken from the introduction:

“(1) This Suit is nothing more than a bad-faith, baseless attempt by State Trooper McKenney to hide behind her private persona and silence Nathan Cox – to retaliate against him for his First Amendment protected political activity – by issuing him a million dollar ticket.”

(2) State Trooper McKenney filed suit in small claims court on March 12, 2014. That suit was dismissed, appealed and then non-suited. By the time State Trooper McKenney filed her March 13, 2014 suit, the statute of limitations for any statement complained of had long since run. Complaint 4-9. The Complaint, State Trooper McKenney expressly claims that ‘[t]his case was previously non-suited and is being refiled within six months of the prior non-suit.’

You can read the rest of those pleadings here: Hanover Circuit Filing -1st Special Plea in Bar – Statute of Limitations

As for the second pleadings which had video exhibits, which were that of Cox’s cell phone video and the DashCam video that he acquired by way of a FOIA Request (which the videos can be found on VA Cop Block’s YouTube channel); this pleading goes after the “Truth of all actionable statements.”

The opening Introduction of that pleading states:

“I asked him to get out of the car and he puts a camera in my face” “I don’t want myself on any type of YouTube or whatever.” (Quotes pulled from Dashboard Camera Audio)

“I asked him to get out of the car and he puts a camera in my face”
“I don’t want myself on any type of YouTube or whatever.”
(Quotes pulled from Dashboard Camera Audio)

“(1) In this case, State Trooper M.H McKenney sues Nathan Cox for defamation after Cox shared accounts of a traffic stop in which McKenney ordered him from his car, attempted to pull a cell phone from his hands because Cox was video recording the interaction, obstructed the collection of evidence and violated Cox’s First and Fourth Amendment Rights.

(2) To Prevail, McKenney must show the statements Cox made are both actionable and false. Many of the alleged defamatory statements are not actionable as a matter of law. As for the rest, the video and other documents related to the incident show that these statements are true or substantially true. While McKenney may be personally offended by some of the statements or the mode of their expression, they are not actionable. Indeed, they constitute protected speech under the First Amendment. Therefore this case should be promptly dismissed. Alternatively, any purported statements the Court determines not to be actionable or which are true should be stricken before the case proceeds further.”

Read the rest of these pleadings here:
Hanover Circuit Filing – 2nd Special Plea in Bar – Truth of All Actionable Statements

Cox’s attorney’s will be releasing a video that will be an exhibit in this case and when that video is released, this article will be updated with the embedded video. 

Continue to follow this case by following Virginia Cop Block on Facebook, Twitter and the website. 

Nathan Cox is seeking donations for his Legal Defense Fund to help pay the cost of his attorneys. Consider making a donation and helping Cox protect hist First Amendment rights and perhaps, although it’s not clear, this case could help set a precedent in protecting YOUR first amendment rights in the process.  Click on the image below to make a donation. Cox has stated he’ll be sending personalized hand-written thank you cards, to everyone who donates.

 

Also, to view the Trooper’s 11 page complaint you can find that here: $1.35M Civil Lawsuit / 11 Page Complaint.

UPDATE: November 7, 2015

Yesterday, November 6, Nathan Cox was back in court dealing with this RIDICULOUS 1.35 Million Dollar lawsuit, brought on by a Virginia State Trooper named Melanie McKenney. If you have had a bad experience with Trooper Melanie McKenney, please private message the  facebook page or submit an entry on the website and let us know! The following is what Nathan published regarding the half day in court:

“Today was a great day in court!
My team of attorneys did an excellent job!
The court will be issuing letter opinions on the pleas filed by my lawyers that should get rid of most if not all of this ridiculous case.

The court denied the motion of the plaintiff attempting to deny access to the files of the state police related to Trooper Melanie McKenney. The documents produced will be subject to a protective order to be used only in the defense of the case.

My attorneys have been working hard on the case and need to get compensated. Please consider supplementing what I’m able to pay them. The work that they are doing is vital to protect free speech and the First Amendment, not just for me but for others who choose to criticize the government. You can help protect our 1st Amendment rights by contributing to the legal defense fund here:
http://www.robertslaw.org/defense-fund/

I appreciate the continued support in this matter–it really means a lot. I’m very grateful to those folks who’ve sent me encouraging messages, who’ve chipped in here and there financially and who appreciate the work I’ve done for the cause of freedom. Thank you!

I’ll write an update on VirginiaCopBlock.org after the judge issues his opinion”

————————————————————————–
Update: December 11, 2015

Followers & Supporters !!!! We have FANTASTIC news regarding the $1.35 Million lawsuit against Virginia Cop Block Founder, Nathan Cox that was meant to silence him. The following is a statement from him:

“My attorneys really hit a home run in court at the end of last month! The court has issued its (3 page) order which stemmed from my attorneys making a few arguments why it should all be thrown out.

The court found that the Appeal by Virginia State Trooper McKenney was improper, the non-suit was a nullity, and therefore ALL statements/ claims with the exception of just ONE HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT!!

The last existing claim is something I said back on March 28th, 2015 when I was invited to speak to some University of Richmond Law Students.

This statement is: “she pretty much assaulted me.” Which my attorneys should be able to dispose of this claim at a summary judgment. If not before.

I want to give a HUGE thank you to my attorneys over at Thomas Roberts & Associates whom I HIGHLY recommend for especially Constitutional matters and police matters respectively.

I also want to give a BIG THANK YOU to everyone who’s supported me in various ways whether through encouragement, prayers, donations to my legal fund, etc. Your support truly means the world to me.

More updates on the way as they come out and finally get this behind me!”

  • Tom Johnson

    Nathan, she knows damn well that she won’t win this suit. She’s doing this because she knows that you need to lawyer up and that will cost you money. Little granny cunt is trying to cost you financial harm. FUCK HER! I sure hope you will file a counter suit. BTW, does anyone know her address?

    • KozJoe

      You’re an asshole too.

      • LibertyforAll

        Wow, another zinger. How do you do it KozJoe? You must be highly educated in the finer nuances of the English language.

        • renegadesix

          Better that than an insufferable hypocrite.

  • renegadesix

    This is what you get for being a lying sack of shit and claiming this woman “molested” you. How does it feel to have the accountability shoe on your own foot, scumbag?

    • KC_Indiana

      From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

      Full Definition of MOLEST
      transitive verb

      1: to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect

      Sounds like he used EXACTLY the right word.

      • renegadesix

        Not when combined with the context of “had her hands all over me” which is primarily used in the context of SEXUAL molestation. Ooops. Context, my little cop hating liberal, is everything.

        • SqingSqorkle

          I find it odd that you call him a liberal, when the actual dogma of conservatism should produce the most fervent anti-cop sentiments.

          But of course, you were just using it as a small-minded insult, and lack a true understanding of politics, right?

          Cool cat picture, by the way!

          • renegadesix

            Wrong. Conservatives don’t hate cops. Never have, never will. Liberals, on the other hand…

          • SqingSqorkle

            I’m sorry to report cool cat picture guy, that you are wrong about me being wrong.
            Conservatives are by definition small government and limited powers of state. Cops are an extension of the power of state.

            Have you considered that you might actually be a fascist and not a conservative? It’ll be ok! Lot’s of people are fascists.

          • renegadesix

            Cops are an extension of the LEGITIMATE powers of the state. The Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not reserved by it to the feds to the states. That includes the general police power. Conservatives believe in the Constitution as written and the exercise of power by the government that is allowed by said document.

            At best you are a libertarian. You are no conservative because you are advocating against something that is specifically given to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

          • SqingSqorkle

            I think that it’s great that you have this much spare time to wander around the internet and be wrong in so many places! I still wonder about your picture – are you a cat lover? My grandmother loves cats, too. You guys should hang out!

            As for your argument, it unfortunately makes what we who are burdened by that pesky beast called logic a “category error”. The United States Constitution has nothing to do with what is or is not considered conservative. That’s how other countries have conservative movements, too!

            In summation, you seem to have a very poor grasp of the things that you so passionately “believe”. I would definitely sit down and do some reading on websites that aren’t run by people named Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh – I would stay away from Anne Coulter, too. (it might be hard for you though, I think that’s she’s into cats, too. 😉 😉

          • renegadesix

            I frankly am not concerned about other countries’ political divides as they are based upon different traditions and laws. “Conservative” is, by definition, partially subjective as what is to be preserved differs from nation to nation.

            —————————————————
            con·serv·a·tive

            adjective

            1. holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
            —————————————————-

            The American conservative political philosophy is based upon strict adherence to the United States Constitution. It is the Constitution that is the historical and legal tradition that is sought to be “conserved” by American conservatives.

            Words mean things, my liberal friend. You are welcome for the education you were just provided but only because you like my avatar.

          • SqingSqorkle

            William F. Buckley:
            “Among our convictions:
            It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens’ lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.”

            It goes without saying that the expansion of the police state is by definition antagonistic to the core values of conservatism, as is the growth of the military, and the supporting apparatus that keeps it afloat. You have been sold socialism – in the form of Military Keynesianism – and swallowed it as conservatism because it was served with a dose of good old boy values.

            So, Mister Cat Fancier don’t try to sell me your corrupt version of conservatism as one that is pure and stems from the basic tenets of Federalism put in place by our founders, because what exists today is an embarrassment to that platform. What exists today is steps away from fascism.

            You are welcome for an actual school lesson. I would earnestly suggest that you learn more about politics and political philosophy before you embarrass yourself any further on the internet.

          • renegadesix

            When Buckley was referring to the “police state” he was not stating that he was anti-police. Nice try. You can be against a “police state” without being anti-police. Nothing in your quote says “conservatives hate the police.” In fact, one of the positions Buckley took during his lifetime was against NYC forming a police citizen review board — not exactly a position someone who is anti-cop would take.

          • SqingSqorkle

            That wasn’t the initial thesis – you’re moving the goal posts…please refer to original post.

            How’s your cat?

          • renegadesix

            Your initial thesis was conservatives hate cops, towit (the first sentence of your first post):

            “I find it odd that you call him a liberal, when the actual dogma of conservatism should produce the most fervent anti-cop sentiments.”

            You are, apparently, holding Buckley out as a Conservative. If so, you failed to prove your point because Buckley did not hate cops.

          • SqingSqorkle

            1. Buckley is the standard bearer of modern conservatism.

            2. My initial thesis was that conservatism should produce anti-cop feelings as an extension of the anti-expansion of state values.

            3. It’s painfully obvious that you’re knee jerk reaction of “no, you’re wrong” without a true and cogent response is indicative of another problem of modern conservatism – intractability and an inability to reasonably integrate their own values into a consistent political platform.

            modern conservatism is a code word for racism and its adherents are too daft to realize that the joke is on them.

            What’s your favorite cat breed?

          • renegadesix

            1. Says whom?

            2. Yet it does not, because Conservatives understand that it makes no sense to attack those charged with carrying out the law. The problem is with those who make the law.

            3. No, what is obvious is that you think providing a quote from William Buckley somehow proves that conservatives hate cops. When what you actually provided was a non sequitur.

            “modern conservatism is a code word for racism and its adherents are too daft to realize that the joke is on them.”

            And that is just over the top bonzo crazy.

            I like all cats, except those hairless bastards. Too damned ugly for me.

          • SqingSqorkle

            I can’t argue with somebody is who too ill-informed to understand the influence on the conservative movement that Buckley had. From the National Review to the “Buckley Rule” he is one, if not the, biggest figures in the right over the last 50 years.

            But, as a mental exercise: how do you think the sovereign citizens vote? They don’t vote for the Dems — they also hate cops.

            It’s ok to admit that you have no idea what you are talking about — so far ever single one of your arguments have been the equivalent of “nu-uh. no it’s not.”

            This is the problem with arguing with people who went to the Glen Beck debate school. They don’t understand that “arguing” doesn’t mean disagreeing, it means formulating a compelling statement that is persuasive.

          • renegadesix

            Yes, Buckley had an influence on conservatism clearly, but he has never been defined as the end all be all of conservatism. Moreover, even if he was, the quote you gave us does not say

            “CONSERVATIVES HATE COPS.” Cops =/= “police state.” I know you’re confused because the latter term has the word “police” in it, but the two are NOT the same.

            “But, as a mental exercise: how do you think the sovereign citizens vote? They don’t vote for the Dems — they also hate cops.”

            What makes you think they vote? As I understand it that would somehow make them enter a contract with the government and eliminate all their sovereignty. That would be particularly true in states that require voter ID. They won’t get an ID.

            “It’s ok to admit that you have no idea what you are talking about — so far ever single one of your arguments have been the equivalent of “nu-uh. no it’s not.””

            That you don’t see the hypocrisy in this statement, particularly in the context of your post, makes this hilarious.

          • SqingSqorkle

            The Buckley Award has been given by the Media Research Center to those who are emblematic of the conservativism, stating “William F. Buckley Jr. is the intellectual cornerstone of the modern conservative movement.”
            Your police =/= police state argument is ludicrous – as the populace will direct their aggressions at the public face of the leviathan.
            Ultimately, you either just don’t have the intellect or or too lazy to make an actual argument, and refuse to accept the logical conclusions of the tenets of conservatism – conclusions that I,myself, did not solely derive- conclusions that are supported by members of the very movement which you purport to support. None of what I have said is out of left field, and a little investigation will find that there are political thinkers on all sides of the spectrum that agree.

            Unless, you’re talking about that good old boy conservatism which just means racist and anti-intellectual. If that’s the case you should have said that straightaway.

          • renegadesix

            Again, you have UTTERLY failed to produce anything by Buckley or anyone else who could be viewed as a lion of conservatism that is anti-law enforcement. Buckley was NOT talking about cops in that quote. He was talking about the nanny state. Moreover, as I pointed out and you utterly ignored, Buckley was AGAINST civilian review boards of the police. Why would someone who was anti-cop be against civilian review boards? The reason clearly, is he was NOT anti-cop.

            You can pat yourself on the back all you like but you have completely failed to support your thesis with anything resembling direct evidence.

            Your mission is simple, find me one quote from Buckley in which he stated “I hate cops.” Find it, or admit the error.

          • SqingSqorkle

            You are an idiot.
            I never said that Buckley said “I hate cops” I said that conservative values should produce anti-cop sentiments.

            I wonder if there is a reading comprehension issue that you have, or if it’s something else.

            Every time that you try to rebut with a “no it’s not” answer, and attempt to transmute my thesis which is clearly stated at the top no many how many times you attempt to misquote it – a trick you probably learned from the other dimwitted and pedantic “conservative” Glen Beck – it doesn’t change the fact that conservatism is a political philosophy that is wary of all actions of state and this includes the police.

            You are not a conservative — you are just a racist redneck.

            Also, I’ve been lying to you. Your cat picture is dumb.

          • renegadesix

            You said that and then produced a comment from Buckley that you claimed supported your hypothesis. It didn’t. And now you want to move the goalpost. Nope. You failed miserably. Admit it and move on.

            Being wary of the actions of the state does not make one hate the police. I can hate confiscatory taxes and income redistribution all day long and still respect the cop who blows away a scumbag trying to shoot up a Marine Corps recruiting station.

          • SqingSqorkle

            What I produced was a quote that showed the tenets of conservatism should produce the greatest degree of skepticism of state expansion of power.

            There is a substantial problem in your argument style in that you are for some reason incapable of putting together simple syllogisms in the form of “if/then”.

            These are capabilities that almost any rational person has, so it frightens me that you have somehow managed to make it this far in life with our developing the critical thinking skills necessary to operate in the real world.

            Your final assertion falls apart in the face of asset seizures by police department, now doesn’t it?

            See yourself out. The emperor has no clothes and what appears to be a very small phallus as well.

          • renegadesix

            Let me know when you actually get around to presenting an “if/then.” You presented an A doesn’t like B, and B sometimes involves C, therefore A doesn’t like C. A classic logic fallacy. If one is against a police state, it does not follow that one is against the police. Why? Because police are necessary even in a non-police state.

            I don’t have a problem with asset forfeitures because they are in the nature of a fine for crimes. They are neither taxes (confiscatory or otherwise) or redistribution of income. They are the price CRIMINALS pay for engaging in crime.

            Idiot, see yourself to the door and try not to let it hit you in the ass this time.

          • SqingSqorkle

            A. If conservatism is a political philosophy that value liberty and defines liberty as the freedom to operate independently of actors of the state, then B. Conservatives should as an extension of that belief systems be the most wary of the actors of state. Using the transitive property that leads to the syllogism that states: if one is truly conservative, then they should be wary of the police.

            Seriously, you need to go to college.

          • renegadesix

            Your argument falls apart at A. That wasn’t your premise. Your premise was that conservatives hate cops. False premise equal faulty conclusion.

          • SqingSqorkle

            You are confusing “premise” for “thesis” – I gave you the conclusion, and now I’ve given you the logic from which it was deduced.

            You’re way out of your league here Kitty Kat.

          • SqingSqorkle

            By the way, here’s another one of your ilk. Conservative, anti-government…wonder what he feels about Buckley?

            https://medium.com/hatewatch-blog/lafayette-theater-shooter-fan-of-hitler-neo-nazis-and-antigovernment-conspiracies-38a16afc9643

          • renegadesix

            They should put this site on anything labeled “hate watch.” You leftists love to hate cops.

        • KC_Indiana

          I find it genuinely amusing that you think I’m a liberal. I’m nowhere close. I enjoy and appreciate freedom.

          Are you a fascist? Just curious. I only ask because you seem to have a liking for shiny boots and a lockstep, tunnel vision mindset.

          As for context, you’re confusing a factual definition with common (and misused) parlance.

          But I’m guessing I’m wasting my time debating this with you. Your knee-jerk defense of this woman indicates you’re either a cop or the family member of a cop. Carry on.

          • renegadesix

            Liberals hate cops, you hate cops. So far the evidence is stacked against you. You claim you like freedom, but it appears you mean anarchy. Uh, no, it isn’t misused parlance either, towit:

            “1: : to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect
            2
            : to make annoying sexual advances to; especially : to force physical and usually sexual contact on”

            Note the second definition.

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/molest

          • LibertyforAll

            KC_Indiana, You need to be cognizant of just whom you reply to on this forum, There are some whose capacity to discuss an issue is clouded by mental illness. Some people are dangerous, threatening and otherwise incapable or rational dialogue. I believe the phrase is, “Don’t cast your pearls among swine.”

          • renegadesix

            So mental illness is your problem? Thanks for the admission, but it was pretty much clear once you said you were “happy” that riots were occurring in which police officers were being shot.

  • Scott

    you need to get a life! would have been a quick stop if you weren’t a punk, you were the one causing the issues and btw you are responsible to repair the plate and get a new one no matter “who ” knocked the plate off your car. You probably did it yourself so the Police would pull you over and you could be a dick

    • Tothe

      So standing up for yourself is “being a dick,” but disrupting someone else’s life with threats of violence is not? If there is no victim, there is no crime, remember.

      • Scott

        Yes, standing up for yourself in this manner is being a dick, I bet you have incidents like this everywhere you go, and not only with the police

        • Tothe

          Nobody else claims the authority to kidnap me, rob me, or murder me under color of law. I actually try to be a peaceful person who seeks voluntary interactions and mutually-beneficial exchanges. The opposite of what government does.

          • Scott

            bullshit

          • Willh33

            FU dipshit!

          • LibertyforAll

            Super Cool Scott and Willh33 – Your brightness is just blinding everyone out here. “bullshit” and “FU dipshit!” that’s the best your brains could muster?

          • renegadesix

            Is “liar,” “cheat”, “bully”, and “sociopath” the best you could muster?

          • Socrates Wilde

            Apologist for the neo-Puritanical welfare-warfare-police state?

          • renegadesix

            Anarchist scumbag?

          • Socrates Wilde

            Surprised you didn’t add “God-hating faggot.”

          • renegadesix

            I have no notion of your religion or sexual preferences. It is clear though that you and all of Mr. Cox’s other sycophants here do prefer anarchy.

          • Socrates Wilde

            I’m hardly a sycophant of someone I’ve barely heard of. I prefer market anarchy to statist alternative, which is institutionalized violence represented by the US political class and their enforcer caste.

          • renegadesix

            Well, there you have it. An admitted anarchist. Thanks for answering my initial question. We can now safely put you in the “nut job anarchist” category, aka, adults with the mentality of toddlers.

          • Shiprex

            Fascist shill. You don’t deserve to have rights

          • renegadesix

            “You don’t deserve to have rights”

            Spoken like a fascist shill. Well done.

          • Shiprex

            Actually you’re wrong. If I were a fascist I would say you shouldn’t have rights NOT that you don’t deserve them.
            Seems like your disregard for others right to live free from fear and abuse is come unstuck when your low intellect is shown up so easily

          • renegadesix

            A distinction with no difference…as one would expect from a person with “low intellect.”

          • Shiprex

            A “distinction with no difference”. You seriously wrote that.
            DUH the inbreed redneck with the inability to realise that contradicting himself just gives further evidence of the right wing no brain dimwits.
            Engage the family brain before posting next. This is tiresome and boring dealing with someone with the intellectual capacity of a paving slab

          • renegadesix

            Hey, it was your idiotic example. I just pointed out how idiotic it was.

          • Shiprex

            Nope you didn’t you are found wanting in the intellect department and thought you were sounding smart and failed.

            Game over

          • renegadesix

            Considering the source, I’m Stephen Hawking.

          • Shiprex

            NO he is intelligent, you’re not
            Fail

          • renegadesix

            Compared to you I’m Stephen Hawking.

          • Shiprex

            No you’re a cockwomble who THINKS he’s smart but when observed the rue cockwomble escapes

          • renegadesix

            Now you’re not even making sense. Get to the meds, QUICK!

          • Shiprex

            English comprehension not your strength?

            Should have known copsuckers don’t do communication skills

          • renegadesix

            English I get. The random words you spew on this blog? Not so much.

          • Shiprex

            I don’t think you do get English or perhaps not at a level commensurate with mine

          • Shiprex

            Doesn’t look like you do it seems as part of knowing English is about comprehending compound words. Common in modern communications to simplify things but for dimwits perhaps not so easy to keep up

          • renegadesix

            Again, it isn’t the words. It is your inane use of them.

          • Shiprex

            Only because you don’t understand

          • renegadesix

            That’s because I don’t understand “gibbering idiot.” I pretty much stick to English.

          • Shiprex

            Gibbering idiot is tripping you up?
            Use a dictionary ffs

          • renegadesix

            Yup. I don’t get your gibbering idiot-speak.

          • Shiprex

            English not a strong point with you I see

          • renegadesix

            I have a strong command of the language. I have no command of what makes you type random words that make no sense.

          • Shiprex

            No a delusional fool

          • Shiprex

            Maybe physically but mentally you’re out of your depth sunny boy. You’re an intellectual slug

          • renegadesix

            I’m the slug and you’re the one responding to something I wrote TWO MONTHS AGO?! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Shiprex

            without the intelligence

          • renegadesix

            Which doesn’t bode well for you at all.

          • Shiprex

            Not in their world they don’t.

          • Socrates Wilde

            Even fascist shills have rights. Even an admitted one.

        • Shiprex

          I suppose the Iraqis who defended their homes from US corporate sponsored invasion were dicks too weren’t they?

          • renegadesix

            Well, yeah. But they weren’t “defending their homes” they were defending a murderous tyrant who supported terror. I’m rather amazed that one of you anarchists would trot out people who supported a dictator as victims.

          • Shiprex

            No they weren’t they were stopping invading imperialists from destroying their nation. A nation where literacy was higher than US and where education was free to all, where social programs kept people out of poverty a lot better than most western nations. Health service was free and there were far greater opportunities than Fox news will tell you.
            Oh and why would they defend this tyrant if he was so bad in the face of imposed Americanisation since that’s what has been imposed (but not quite there yet and won’t be for a few decades yet while millions die and millions more become refugees.

            Apologist for the Zionists trying to screw the wealth out of everyone who isn’t them.

          • renegadesix

            Gee, why am I not surprised to find out that you are a treasonous verminous anti-semite?

          • Shiprex

            Ant-semite?
            Really when Zionists ARE NOT FUCKING JEWS but Western imperialists intent on enslaving humanity for their own fascist ends.

            You are an ignorant fool if you think Zionist are just some sky daddy worshipers.

          • renegadesix

            Wow, there psycho. Take a step back from the keyboard, go to the medicine cabinet, and take the pills the nice doctor prescribed for your bouts of paranoia.

          • Shiprex

            Paranoia? Go tell that to the millions of Syrians fleeing their homes and the families of the millions of Iraqi and Afghani families who’ve lost family because of the Zionists wanting the resources their land is unfortunate to have under it. Oh and those forgotten indigenous people of the middle east who’ve had millions of immigrants with totally different cultural values that are completely anti their own who suffer from oppression sponsored by the same shithead zionist asshats who’ve enslaved the US and Europeans nations with their warmongering ways.
            Yeah go tell them it’s just fucking paranoia. Take off the blinkers

          • renegadesix

            So the meds aren’t working for you, huh? You’d have made an excellent death camp guard.

          • Shiprex

            Yeah but I would have treated the inmates better than the zionists are treating the rest of humanity since I don’t have that arrogant self centred egotist gene that you grow out of when you’re about 9 or 10 and start to realise that other people are affected by your actions and not being a selfish prick like them I tend to prefer to ally with others than use them for my own benefit. While people like you think the copsucker attitude is the right way to a good and ordered society where the haves can have more while the rest do as they’re told.

          • renegadesix

            Yup, the meds are DEFINITELY not working. Either that or the tinfoil hat is getting a bit tight.

          • Shiprex

            No it’s the fascist copsuckers who support the under qualified and arrogant behaviour of rent a gun army failures who have no respect for the people who pay their salaries.

          • renegadesix

            I doubt you pay anyone’s salary.

          • Shiprex

            NO I’m not one of you tax dodging cockwombles

          • renegadesix

            No, you’re a tax sucking welfare cockwomble.

          • Shiprex

            Make up your own insults and stop using mine

          • renegadesix

            I did. See there’s that English thing again you have such a problem with. “tax sucking welfare” is not the same as “tax dodging”.

            Have your mom explain it to you when you next emerge from her basement.

          • Shiprex

            You didn’t make up your own insult, you used mine and you seem to confuse a sponger (you as a pro avoiding tax and hence benefiting from NOT paying) with those who rely on it to survive thanks to your sort who shy away from responsibilities and ensure the cockwombles in power keep your sort sweet in some Dickensian fantasy future you all have for the world.

          • renegadesix

            Ahh, so you’re a communist to boot. Odd, your sort is usually the totalitarian type since most folks don’t like handing over the money they work for to support lazy cretins who won’t.

          • Shiprex

            What you can tell how much I get paid just because I am right? Quite a talent perhaps you should take up palmistry or tarot card reading.

          • renegadesix

            Nope, I just know the cop hating types — criminals; low life scum, usually on welfare; OR psycho anarchist/libertarian to contrarian to hold a job. Neither one pays much in the way of taxes.

          • Shiprex

            Never been without a job and worked even while at school. Traveled a whole lot more than most Americans and paid more tax to more governments than I care to mention. But keep up the ignorant incorrect stereotyping, it’s common for the Trump stars

          • renegadesix

            And when you came down from that high, what gutter were you lying in?

          • Shiprex

            Have done and still do
            Hear those bubble bursting

          • renegadesix

            Nope. The benefits of the internet. Let me guess, you’re also six foot ten, played for the Cowboys, and invented the internet.

          • Shiprex

            Keep supping the Koolaid and injecting the prime time. They got your brain wired to their ideology. Zombies are YOU

          • renegadesix

            Ah yes, “koolaid,” the last resort of the conspiracy kook.

          • Tothe

            You mean the Jonestown massacre never happened? And people never blindly obey illegitimate authority to the point of self-destruction?

          • renegadesix

            No, I mean the inevitable rejoinder from nut jobs like you when someone rejects your nut job theories.

          • Shiprex

            It’s your favourite though and you keep sucking it up like the mass media want you to

          • renegadesix

            Better that than a tinfoil hat. The funny thing? The media is ATTACKING the police now. So if it is media koolaid being dispensed, it would seem that it is YOU guzzling it down.

          • Shiprex

            Odd you say this as that’s the exact mentality these armed thugs in uniform tend to be like. Power mad and jacked on steroids or doughnuts from most observations

          • renegadesix

            With “most observations” being you and your fellow meth heads whilst under the influence.

          • Shiprex

            You need to research who Zionists are since that closet you’re in is pretty well locked and dark

          • renegadesix

            And you need to adjust those meds.

          • Shiprex

            Or an informed member of society (that great threat to ‘Democracy’

          • renegadesix

            I’m sticking with option 1.

      • renegadesix

        Only in the insane world of the wacked out sovereign citizen. If it is a law and said law has been passed pursuant to constitutional authority, it is a crime whether there is an individual victim or not. If you don’t like it, take your goat smelling ass to some island somewhere and live out your anarchists nirvana there. The rest of us don’t want to be killed on the highways because your stupid ass thinks running a stop sign is OK because there is no victim.

    • Willh33

      Punk huh? Gee Scott, are you a cop maybe??? Hmmm???

      • Scott

        No I’m not a cop just someone that thinks you’re being ridiculous. Get a life!

      • Ned Weatherby

        I think the proper term is “cop sucker.”

        • renegadesix

          No. It is “person who respects law enforcement and the service they provide.”

          As for you people, the term would be “ingrate spoiled brats who rebel for the sheer hell of it without regard to the harm it causes other people.”

          • Shiprex

            not when the same law is doing wrong but fascism is so cool

          • renegadesix

            It isn’t doing wrong. You just can’t handle living in a society with rules.

          • Shiprex

            Where is there a law that says you cannot record for evidence interactions with law enforcement agents?
            Don’t bother looking there isn’t one. When law enforcement can monitor and detain you there is nothing that can stop you keeping a record of the interaction to ensure at a later date there was no improper conduct by the same law enforcement officer.

          • renegadesix

            “Where is there a law that says you cannot record for evidence interactions with law enforcement agents? ”

            It depends upon who is doing it and what their status is. Here the person was the one being detained. There are all kinds of Supreme Court opinions on the subject of compliance with orders by detained persons for officer safety grounds. That is why there hasn’t been a case in which any court has upheld a right of the detained person to record his detention.

            A BYSTANDER can record the interaction, but not the detained person.

            “Arrestee’s complaint against police officers of aviation police department and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents failed to sufficiently state plausible claim that the officers and agents were liable under § 1983 for violating his First Amendment right to gather news when defendants refused to permit him to record on video the official conduct of TSA agents at an airport security screening checkpoint and ultimately arrested him, absent allegations that the checkpoint’s primary purpose was the free expression of ideas or that the TSA had intentionally opened a nontraditional public forum for public discourse, that defendants’ orders to stop recording constituted an unreasonable restriction on his right to gather news or record government officials’ activity in public, or that the order to stop recording or his subsequent removal from the area were done in opposition to his viewpoint.” Mocek v. City of Albuquerque
            3 F.Supp.3d 1002 (D.N.M. 2014)

          • Shiprex

            Do you know which part of the law these TSA officers were using to defend themselves? NO well it’s anti terrorist laws as there is a terror threat increase when knowledge of individuals and practices WITHIN A FUCKING AIRPORT you dipshit and the video recording signs are everywhere.
            FFS get a grip and stop being a total fanny

          • renegadesix

            First of all, you claimed there was no law at all. I gave you an example that proved you wrong. Second, there does not have to be a specific because, as I pointed out, officer safety opinions from the SCOTUS give officers all the authority they need to make a detained person empty their hands.

            You lose.

          • Shiprex

            IN context dopey.
            The context of this example is nothing to do with airport security just as it would be different if you were in a sensitive area just as there are different contexts in military, government, medical, SWIMMING POOLS, etc. areas where the recording of any kind of activity is restricted you dope.
            Airport security areas are not the same as in the street are not the same as changing rooms in swimming areas or beaches, or government agencies or hospitals. FFS do you have a clue or do you copsuckers always try to slime your way out with obfuscation and bullshit all the time?

          • renegadesix

            “IN context dopey.”

            We WERE in context. You spoke of law enforcement broadly. I gave you answers that handled both the broad (SCOTUS officer safety decisions) and specifically. You got showed up and now you are showing out.

          • Shiprex

            How can you be in context and at the same time be referring to things broadly you plonker?
            Airports and primary schools and military bases are NOT BROADLY but specific examples where the right to record interactions is restricted NOT a road traffic stop you fool.
            Give up you’re found wanting and lost again. Or keep digging the darkness is a sign you’re failing more

          • renegadesix

            How can it be in context? When YOU expand the context with your comment. YOU did it, don’t blame me.

            Yes, you asked for an example of a law that prevents you from videoing law enforcement. I gave you one in a SPECIFIC context, and I ALSO gave you the more broad context that you keep ignoring — SCOTUS officer safety decisions.

            You have lost so badly it is fun watching you try to spin your way out of it. Keep it up.

          • Shiprex

            WTF are you on?

            This is a dialogue about THIS instance and you come along with bullshit that suggests this guy is not allowed to record the interaction with police because of some bull about not being respectful of the armed state bully who IS breaking the law by preventing the victim from recording the interaction.

            Now that IS a specific example of what this thread IS about rather than some spaceman copsucker fascist wet dream of yours. Coming away with random bollocks about circumstances totally irrelevant to the case. It’s like someone who drives over the speed limit using the excuse ‘but I can drive at 90 in another country or on a highway or on a racetrack.

            Facetiousness is what dicks become when they are found out to be full of shit

          • renegadesix

            I imagine we’ll be reading about you shooting up a theater some time in the future too.

          • Shiprex

            Or YET another feeble psychotic cop murdering a helpless unarmed innocent civilian.
            A more than daily occurrence it seems. Are they competing with each other for top prize of who can get away with murder with that “in fear for my life” line?

          • renegadesix

            There’s a lot more cops getting killed out there than the occasional scumbag thug shot under suspicious circumstances by a rogue cop. But don’t ever let facts get in the way of your hatred.

          • Shiprex

            Yeah because there are thousands of cops being killed on the streets every year.
            Evidence suggests otherwise but that’s alien to you

          • renegadesix

            There aren’t thousands of people being shot by cops, let alone under suspicious circumstances. The overwhelming majority of officer involved shootings are legally justified.

          • Shiprex

            Police should be a model for society and not gun mad homicidal loons. Just look at how other civilised nations manage without the high firearm use even though they are armed. Seems like disrespect for life is the problem

          • renegadesix

            Well you should be happy, because that’s exactly what the overwhelming majority of them are. Too bad we can’t say the same about you and your ilk.

          • Shiprex

            Still too many innocent people being killed by armed thugs with a licence to abuse people

          • renegadesix

            Hasn’t ever been one such case. Ever. No one has a “license to abuse people.” Your blind hate just turned your rhetoric down “I’m a Lying Sack of Shit Lane.”

          • Shiprex

            Not me but likely one of your gun lover mates

          • Shiprex

            How can the President be a broad context. It’s one personality so it’s specific you moron.
            I shouldn’t have bothered with responding to such a plonker

          • renegadesix

            Do you even remember what it was you got schooled on? Probably not. Must be the meds.

          • Tothe

            What services do they provide? The Supreme Court has decreed that they have no obligation whatsoever to risk themselves to protect anyone else. The majority of the laws they enforce are arbitrary prohibitions rather than crimes against person or property.

            Meanwhile, you assert that objection to being molested is being an ungrateful spoiled brat, and that there is some definite harm done by objecting to having one’s life interrupted by an armed busybody who claims the authority to murder for noncompliance. How is that being civilized, pray tell?

          • renegadesix

            Actually, the Supreme Court has walked back that decision for situations in which the police put people in that position. Additionally, I strongly suggest before you make this statement again that you look at the Court’s 8th and 14th Amendment jurisprudence on the obligation of law enforcement to protect prisoners — even from each other.

            Regardless of their legal obligation, they nonetheless do protect the public with the most obvious and recent example being the shootings in Chattanooga that was stopped by the police killing the bad guy.

          • Ned Weatherby

            “you people” Heh. So, according to your terms, generalizations are OK – right, Cop Sucker?
            Oh yeah – here’s your “service”
            http://www.killedbypolice.net/

          • renegadesix

            As of my posting, this is the top “killed by police” link:

            http://www.12newsnow.com/story/29588216/chambers-county-deputy-involved-shooting-near-winnie

            The story? Here you go:

            “12News has learned that a Chambers County deputy was involved in an officer-involved shooting around 9 a.m. Monday in the 18000 block of County Line Road off of Hwy 73 near Winnie.

            A woman had a restraining order against a 35-year-old man. He showed up at the house and authorities were called.

            According to a news release issued mid afternoon Monday, two deputies and a Department of Public Safety trooper responded to the house. The DPS trooper tried to take the man in custody and he broke free. The news release says the man went to his vehicle and got a gun. Several shots were fired and the suspect was hit.

            The suspect was pronounced dead at the scene.

            I guess you missed the recent news that the Chattanooga nut job was stopped when he was shot and killed BY POLICE. Guess what? He was “killed by police” too. I guess those cops were wrong to shoot him, right? Why, we all have a constitutionally protected right to walk into town shooting people.”

            So, I guess in your warped world view, the cops should either:

            a) let the nut job kill the woman; and/or
            b) let him kill them and THEN go kill the woman.

            Yeah, moron, putting him down was a SERVICE.

      • LibertyforAll

        Don’t forget the most prolific statement he used there. He really nailed Nathan by calling him a dick.

        • renegadesix

          He is one, and so are you.

  • damalama

    Lying about the mental health of a trooper saying she is crazy that she committed a criminal act of molesting you, in my opinion you will be paying this trooper for the rest of you life. One thing to record a officer another thing to to be non compliant argumentative trying to cause a reaction to get views on YouTube. Hopefully if you receive money from views she can take that too.

    • KC_Indiana

      I would say you don’t know what you’re talking about…. and you’re probably a cop yourself with a big load of ButtHurt. 😉

      • renegadesix

        When she’s awarded a ton of money for the lies he told, the butthurt will be all yours (and the scumbag confrontational jerkwad she’s suing).

    • LibertyforAll

      Me thinks you need to go back and read a bit on this case.

      Lying about the mental health… that statement is laughable.

      In his Attorney’s court filing,
      “Innuendo cannot be used to introduce new matter or to extend the meaning of the word used.”

      -and-

      “The United States Supreme Court has recognized that speakers may use language that is insulting, offensive, or otherwise innappropriate, but constitues no more than ‘rhetorical hyperbole.’ Examples include referring to the negotiating position of a real estate developer as ‘blackmail,” defining a lobor union ‘scab’ to be a ‘traitor,'”

      “A communication that suggests” is enough of your statement to already render it moot.

      A communication that reflects negatively” again, eye of the beholder, etc. etc.

      “A communication that exposes a plaintiff to ridicule ” – She did that all on her own. The court will rule that the viewer is given the ability to make the determination themselves.

      “A communication that reflects negatively on the plaintiff’s character, morality, or integrity” – 95% of the LEOs and their apologists posts on this forum reflects negatively on their character, morality or integrity. Are you saying she looks bad because Nathan posted a video of her during a traffic stop and called her crazy and said she was bothering or annoying him, oops “molesting” him?

      “A communication that impairs the plaintiff’s financial well-being” President Obama does this everyday to just about every American out there. Whoo hoo, we have a class action boys! I don’t even know where to begin with that one. Ever heard of Angie’s List, Kudzu.com or even Google?

      “A communication that suggests” – Well there you go again. Just the words renders the remainder of your statement moot.

      This will never go to trial and you LEOs out there are not going to gain any ground by it. In fact, you ought to be ashamed of this officers actions. The best you can hope for is it only gets thrown out of court.

      But Alas… If her lawsuit results in law enforcement having a harder time because the People will know their rights even better as a result, thereby leading to law enforcement personnel having their financial well being impaired, does that mean she will liable for their losses? Is she guilty of defamation toward any and all LEOS out there?

      • renegadesix

        You are living proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Go read NYT v. Sullivan and stop making yourself look stupid.

      • damalama

        Where to begin with your ignorant post? Those are just some of the requirements in Virginia to win a suit or prove your case. Posting that someone is crazy is a comment on their mental health. Secondly when it comes to your pathetic attempts at defending how the “communication” didn’t violate the requirements. I’ll just stick with one that you can google since most of you anti cop people learn your “rights” on YouTube and other sites. You point out Angies list and others as examples of people posting comments that affect a persons financial means? Again you prove your ignorance of not researching anything throughly before opening your mouth. Lawsuits are filed and won by companies and services for negative comments frequently. However I’m done arguing with someone like you, we will just wait and see what happens in court, since there is defiantly grounds for one.

  • KozJoe

    Dude,
    You’re an asshole.
    You questioned why there were “20 cops in this last mile”. I don’t see how that is any of your business. Whether it’s right or wrong, it’s not you business.
    You didn’t fix the license plate for over a week after it broke off. That’s more tha enough time.
    Seems to me you are looking to get pulled over so you can make these lame ass videos.
    You’re an asshole.
    I can’t wait until your phone breaks and one of these cops beats the living shit out of you. You’ll have deserved every bruise.
    You’re an asshole.

    • Tothe

      How is it fundamentally a crime to not have a license plate? Who is the injured party owed restitution?

      • John Coktosten

        It’s in the laws. Driving is a privilege, not a right. There are rules and laws associated with the privilege of driving a motor vehicle. If you break or ignore those laws, you are subject to the penalties associated with those laws. Nobody has to be injured or be owed restitution. They are the rules / laws. Welcome to adulthood and responsibility.

        • Tothe

          “It’s the law” is not a rational argument. Appeal to legality is not appeal to reason or morality. Slavery was legal once, and helping slaves escape was illegal. This is just a very incredibly obvious example of a repeated pattern throughout history.

          “Driving is a privilege, not a right” is false. An automobile is private property, property is a right, and the roads are unowned thus negating any trespass.

          “Nobody has to be injured or be owed restitution.” If there is no victim, there is no crime. If there is no injury to person or property, there is no victim.

          “They are the rules / laws. Welcome to adulthood and responsibility.” This is the classic is/ought problem combined with another appeal to legality. You are not making any rational arguments here at all.

          • TheNate

            So you don’t think it’s necessary to have visible identification of a vehicle while you drive on public roads? Why might I ask?

          • Tothe

            No, I don’t. First, you fail to understand the purpose of license plate numbers. It isn’t for identification except as proof that you paid the arbitrarily demanded fees. Second, public property does not exist, since property is defined by right of final disposition, and no one has right of disposition, so no one owns it at all. Thus there is no trespass, no property claimant to assert conditions of use, and no crime committed. Third, it is possible that there would be a market demand for unique identifiers for automobiles for one reason or another, but this does not prove in any way that the government system is legitimate, suitable toward that propose, or effective.

          • John Coktosten

            look moron, driving is NOT A RIGHT. Show me ANYWHERE in ANY State or Federal Constitution that says you have the RIGHT to drive. It is absolutely a privilege, governed by rules and laws to ensure everyone is treated fairly and with regards to safety. Where did you go to law school? Or, any school for that matter. What are you talking about regarding slavery? When it was the law, you could be punished for breaking that law. If you don’t like the law about having a front license plate, then work to change the laws. You don’t have to injure someone to have a law that says you need a front license plate. If you really look into it, it comes down to safety and identification. If you kill someone, and someone else gets your license plate (from behind), and you and I are traveling in opposite directions but currently towards each other, I can easily identify you by your front license plate. there are many other scenarios, but you get the picture (or maybe you don’t, which is why you post incomprehensible rhetoric).

          • Tothe

            1. name-calling doe snot support your argument.
            2. Rights are not granted by magical pieces of paper, but I would suggest you look into the 9th and 10th amendments in the Bill of Rights.
            3. Appeal to popular opinion, appeal to authority, and appeal to consequence are not rational arguments.
            4. “…every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ~ Frédéric Bastiat
            5. Your refusal to understand very basic English is not a counterargument.

          • Socrates Wilde

            Read the Ninth Amendment, Mr. Statist. Additionally, a law that violates individual rights and natural law is no law at all and deserves to be ignored.

          • renegadesix

            The Ninth Amendment applies only to rights that existed in 1791 or their direct analogues. As driving on a highway has no analogue to any right that existed in 1791, it is not a right “retained” by the people.

            Nice try.

          • Socrates Wilde
          • renegadesix

            And there were common law rules that did not allow unfettered access to the roads. For example, Pennsylvania colonial courts punished those who obstructed roads under common law.

            https://books.google.com/books?id=7q98iHsJFHcC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=%22common+law%22+%22roads%22+colonial&source=bl&ots=304o-CxQHd&sig=H5YD73_flsXti-vn1mpevfFhnCk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBmoVChMIoKT5lYPmxgIVyZWICh3TEAED#v=onepage&q=%22common%20law%22%20%22roads%22%20colonial&f=false

            And notice what I did there…gave you something you can actually look at to back up my claim instead of a book you have to buy that doesn’t.

            I don’t know what the books you reference claim, but perhaps you ought to buy them, read them, and actually see if they support your argument before you base it on them again.

          • Socrates Wilde

            Must be pretty subtle, but I don’t see it. But maybe statist “court” history is just that. Out of curiosity, why would you assert that I’ve never read the books in the links? Or maybe, more, like attended lectures by the author. who is the premiere authority on the Ninth Amendment?

          • renegadesix

            “Must be pretty subtle, but I don’t see it.”

            “…courts issued orders for the construction of roads and prosecuted individuals who obstructed them or failed to work on them.”

            And LOL at the statist court history remark. Smacks of “well, if the right didn’t exist its because the courts at the time were wrong.” The only thing that matters is the “right” that you are trying to claim did not exist in 1791.

            As for your last point, one would hope that someone who had actually read the book or attended a lecture would be able to quote something more than a link to the books.

          • Socrates Wilde

            It must be really subtle, or else, maybe, it’s just that your point is irrelevant.

            Out of curiosity, why would you presume that I haven’t read the volumes in the links? Or, for instance, attended lectures by the author, who happens to be the premiere authority on the Ninth Amendment? You appear to have an interest in common law, but seem unaware of the legal scholar Randy Barnett, and I suspect you’ve also never heard of Lysander Spooner.

            (Aside: I suspect you’re probably not a cop yourself — but I leave open the possibility. Rather, I suspect you’re connected way to the State, and have been educated to a little degree in state-approved legal theory. Furthermore, you may also possibly be one of the Empire’s paid shills, but that’s not terribly important.)

            Finally, I find your earlier posted statement, “I just know the character of people like you who hate cops. Most of you are criminals. The rest are insane anarchists,” to be chillingly indicative of the the fascistic mindset and hostility of the sociopaths and psychopaths who presume authority to rule over others. Are the people you interact with everyday aware of this?

            Here’s a little something to make your head explode (that’s a metaphor, by the way): https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state

          • renegadesix

            Not sure why you made two posts rather than edit your initial one, but oh well. I’ll just address the things you added here:

            No, frankly I haven’t heard of them. I prefer to do my own work. I can read the 9th Amendment. I can research colonial common law for myself. I don’t need a self-professed “scholar” to make up my mind for me. But you go right ahead and follow the ramblings of whomsoever is in vogue these days.

            Skimming briefly some of Barnett’s arguments I see things he argued in 2006 that I have been arguing since 1994 when I was taking on my hippie con law professor on a regular basis. And those weren’t original ideas with me in that Scalia laid down the same arguments in some of his more famous dissents long before I applied to law school.

            “Finally, I find your earlier posted statement,”

            Oh ye of little discernment. What I wrote is the result of decades of taking on spoiled ingrates in debates like these and finding, much as you have revealed in your postings, that such sentiments come primarily from people with criminal records and the true sociopaths who cannot see what is right beyond their own noses (aka, anarchists).

            “Furthermore, you may also possibly be one of the Empire’s paid shills”

            Not that it is any of your business, but I have never worked for an “Empire.” Your use of that term only demonstrates how far out of touch with reality you truly are.

          • LibertyforAll

            Is it that you’re getting ticked off because you are frustrated with his well articulated replies to you or that you can’t help it. He certainly does not sound like a moron but I have to give room for LEOs apparent beliefs that everyone is somehow beneath them.

            Tothe makes a very direct and valid point regarding slavery being legal once and you respond with more laws to beleaguer the point? And you call him a moron? Perhaps if you argued that safety equals victim you might have had a slight point although supposed safety is another matter altogether.

            Okay, so we have

            John Saying: Moron
            John Saying” Where did you go to law school? Or, any school for that matter.
            John Saying: you post incomprehensible rhetoric
            Tothe Says: *crickets* no ad homonym attacks, no name calling, no insults.
            Hmm…. Yup, John’s driving home some real zingers making his points so distinctly.

          • renegadesix

            OK, so we have LibertyforAll, aka, HypocrisyforAll saying that “EVERY” cop is:

            A liar
            A bully
            A Cheat

            And that “most” cops are sociopaths

            Yup, HypocrisyforAll is “driving home some real zingers making his points so distinctly.”

          • renegadesix

            The roads are owned by the public and regulated by the government for the good of all. Driving on them is a privilege and there is nothing in the Constitution that says otherwise.

        • LibertyforAll

          While there is nothing in that statement that is incorrect, how do you account for her violations of Nathan’s 1st Amendment protections? When she took his phone and turned it over, she crossed a line.

          • renegadesix

            You keep saying “she crossed the line” as if it were true. No court has EVER held that a detainee has a right to video his own arrest.

            And this, ladies and gents, is why this coward is refusing to respond. I challenged him multiple times to provide the legal authority for this statement he keeps repeating. Knowing he was lying and knowing that there is no such authority for his claim, he chose to be “offended” at an unrelated post.

            Do not believe him. He is wrong, and he cannot prove she stepped over the line by citation to ANY legal authority.

        • “adulthood and responsibility”?
          Seriously?
          Adults take responsibility by thinking for themselves. Only small children who lack maturity obey “authority” without question.

      • KozJoe

        So, If you don’t like the law, you feel it’s OK to disobey it.
        When my kid was 7, she felt the same way about making her bed.
        You are an overgrown pu$$y baby.
        I am sure if you need the cops, and one day you will, I’ll bet you will want them there fast and you’ll want them to help you. If they get held up on a traffic stop by some putz wanting to see their supervisor and causing silly delays, I hope you will then realize what I said at first, that you’re an asshole.
        It’s the law and if you don’t like the law, follow the proper procedures to implement a change. Breaking the law because you don’t like it is what the muslims do. Are you a muslim? You should move to Iran, where your antics will get you thrown in jail for 10 years or until they feel like dealing with you.
        You live in the best country in the world and you are fabricating issues. I can’t wait for the day when one of these cops beats the pi$$ out of you. You deserve it.

        • Tothe

          Basically, yes, bad laws are meant to be broken. You seem to think that just because some people said, “This shall henceforth be the law,” it is automatically legitimate. Then you call names to cover up your poor argumentation. Further, you build the strawman argument that “opposition to an extortion-funded monopoly that has no obligation to protect anyone” somehow means “I don’t want any security services at all.” I want a security system that is funded voluntarily in a competitive market with liability for failure and incentive for good service. No enforcement of victimless crime “laws” thank you very much.

          The only way to end bad laws isn’t through electoral politics, it’s through civil disobedience, noncompliance, and jury nullification. That is the only power we have. We do not in fact live in the freest country in the world in many areas of life. The trouble is, your solution instead of simply disregarding illegitimate authority is to move to the territory of whatever oligarchs seem least offensive at the moment. Your argument is really just the “ergo decedo” fallacy combined with “is/ought.”

          • LibertyforAll

            The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.
            -Abraham Lincoln

            Civil disobedience is good too!

            “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.” – Mahatma Gandhi

          • renegadesix

            Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus on doubtful constitutional authority.

            India is a friggin’ mess.

            You’re not doing too well here.

          • KozJoe

            So, you are a big baby.
            Don’t like the laws, cry until someone listens and helps.
            This country was based on laws. We can change the laws through the processes put in place to do so.
            Anarchy results when enough babies like you end up in control. Stop being a putz.

          • Tothe

            Name-calling, the absurd idea that “government is us,” and the argument that anarchy = anyone in change. Lulz.

          • Socrates Wilde

            “This country was based on laws. We can change the laws through the processes put in place to do so.” This statement is false and is a common assertion made by pro-government extremists.

            The US was founded on Liberty under the RULE of law, but after more than 200 years it has degenerated into the rule of men. There is no longer any liberty and no rule of law.

            No one can any longer change unconstitutional or bad laws. The system is corrupted and we are under the rule of poltical gangsters and the coorporate/bankster cronies.

            I should also note that your choice of Lincoln as your avatar symbolizes your approval of America’s bloody first dictator.

          • KozJoe

            No, I agree with what you are saying. 100%. Lincoln is just my latest avatar. I change up. as far as corruption, I agree the entire system is now corrupt. However, it is still silly to try to create a situation in which a police officer gets upset, just so a new ‘Cop Block’ video can be posted.
            Of all government workers, the cops are the first we call when there is an issue of potential danger. Most of the time, they do a good job. Exploiting them with video and fresh talk could get one hurt.
            Would you want some smart ass with a camera recording you at your job and questioning your decisions and asking for your superior? I hope not.

          • Socrates Wilde

            I’m skeptical that many people would merely “to try to create a situation in which a police officer gets upset, just so a new ‘Cop Block’ video can be posted.” (Although I wouldn’t put it past someone.)
            BECAUSE they are government enforcers — members of the enforcement caste — and their entire culture has been corrupted (and pretending this job is like any other job) is comparing apples and oranges. No, I wouldn’t like being videoed at work, but the comparison is irrelevant. ALL public officials are subject to full public scrutiny.
            I consider the police to be an unconstitutional standing army enforcing illegal law. Not only should the laws be repealed, but these forces should be abolished. As a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist I believe a system of competing private security services would perform better, at a more reasonable cost, and with a vastly greater respect for civil liberties.

          • Fred Bastiat

            Thanks, been wanting to say this for days in response to a number of articles but was too lazy. +1

          • KozJoe

            Corruption starts at a much higher level.

            Why don’t you take your video camera and stick it in the face of one of you local government officials as they go about their day. See if they like it. You want to do away with cop? You believe a system of competing private security services would perform better. Who is going to make sure they are not corrupted? The civil liberties of criminals will be just as disregarded. NO one wants to deal with criminals for little money. When they keep seeing the same criminals day in and day out, they start getting pissed and take it out on the criminal. What do you do for money?

          • Socrates Wilde

            You’ll feel better once you stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

        • LibertyforAll

          Let me help old Koz out here. The points he feels are the most critical are:

          overgrown pu$$y baby
          some putz
          you’re an asshole
          Are you a muslim? You should move to Iran
          I can’t wait for the day when one of these cops beats the pi$$ out of you. You deserve it.
          He is probably working LE somewhere out there too.

          • renegadesix

            The points you feel are most critical are that cops are liars, bullies, and cheats and that you are happy they are being hurt in riots.

            You just can’t help being a hypocrite, can you?

        • Socrates Wilde

          Pro-government extremist. Apologist for the neo-puritanical American welfare-warfare-police state.

        • Socrates Wilde

          “When my kid was 7, she felt the same way about making her bed.” So when rules in one’s home conflate with State-imposed laws?

    • LibertyforAll

      Yeah KozJoe, it isn’t like they are public servants or anything.

      You really believe a guy runs around breaking a law that is clearly enforceable just to get videos. It would seem to me the police would welcome writing him up and not give him anything worthy of filming.

      Lastly, you really drove your points home with the negative comments that you cop apologists seem unable to resist. Terms like “Asshole”, “I can’t wait until your phone breaks” and “one of these cops beats the living shit out of you” offer so much to the dialogue. Refer to the “COMPLETELY unglued, unhinged” thread for additional information.

      • renegadesix

        “You really believe a guy runs around breaking a law that is clearly enforceable just to get videos.”

        Happens every day with you anti-cop loons.

    • “I can’t wait until your phone breaks and one of these cops beats the living shit out of you.”
      Be careful what you wish for.
      Today it might be him.
      Tomorrow it might be you.
      Correction. Tomorrow it will be you. Count on it.

      • renegadesix

        Those of us who obey the law never have to worry about such things.

        • An unarmed man shot dead by a New York City police officer in a public housing block in Brooklyn on Thursday evening was “totally innocent”, the city’s police commissioner said on Friday.

          Bill Bratton spoke at press conference in New York on Friday. The man who was shot dead has been named in reports as 28-year-old Akai Gurley.

          “What happened last night was a very unfortunate tragedy. The
          deceased is totally innocent. He just happened to be in the hallway. He was not engaged in any criminal activity,” Bratton said.

          • renegadesix

            Did you ACTUALLY just compare an accidental discharge with an officer purposefully beating the shit out of some one? Or did you think I didn’t know about the case and would just take some out of context quotes as proof of your lies?

          • “Those of us who obey the law never have to worry about such things.”

          • renegadesix

            With such things being “beats the living shit out of you.” Again, how does an ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE prove your “point”?

          • “Those of us who obey the law never have to worry about such things.”

          • renegadesix

            With “such things” being “beats the living shit out of you.” No one said anything about an accidental discharge.

          • renegadesix

            I pick don’t click links from left wing wacko websites.

          • At least 550 people — many of whom were unarmed and/or mentally ill — have been killed by police in the first six months of the year.

            Nearly 120 people were unarmed. And by the Washington Post’s count, 461 people have been shot and killed by an on-duty officer.

            In June alone, cops killed 75 people. At least 60 of those people were shot.

            Law enforcement has been killing people for decades, however a dearth of reliable national data obscured the number deaths caused by police in years past.

          • renegadesix

            And EXACTLY how many of those people were not in the middle of committing a criminal act? Hmmmmm?

          • Socrates Wilde

            Unfortunately, few Americans understand irony.

          • Indeed!

          • Socrates Wilde

            There have been so many of these I’ve lost count. But renegadesix won’t care. He is an authoritarian conservative with a visceral hatred of “anarchists.”

          • “They hate us for our freedoms.”

          • Yup. I simply Googled and picked one at random, out of over 17.5 million entries. Obviously many are duplicates, but even if one eliminates duplicates, it’s way more than anyone who purports to value natural rights and individual liberty can ignore.

            To me his response merely confirms what I already knew. Conservative authoritarians have no more respect for natural rights and individual liberty than liberal authoritarians.

            They are just as much a menace as liberals.

          • Socrates Wilde

            Yes, indeed!

          • renegadesix

            Next time Google something that actually isn’t a non sequitur.

          • renegadesix

            Compared to the number of cops killed, these incidents are rarer than hen’s teeth.

          • Socrates Wilde

            Right. (sarcasm) “0nly blue lives matter.” Meaning: only the political mafia and its enforcement caste’s lives matter.

          • renegadesix

            Never said that. Enjoy beating up that strawman?

          • Socrates Wilde

            No, you never said that explicitly, but it’s implicit in everything you say. So, it’s NOT a strawman.

          • renegadesix

            When you are finding things “implicitly” in statements that in no way even hint at such things, its a strawman.

          • Socrates Wilde
      • KozJoe

        This was 5 days ago. Nothing happened.
        The fact is that there are bad employees in every workplace.
        This goes for police, as well.
        It wouldn’t be fair to judge all Microsoft employees, based on one agent who gave extremely poor service.
        I’d bet that there are many recordings of cops (done be this guy) that did nothing wrong. But the videos never make it on the site. If you only show bad cops, then people think all cops are bad.
        If you think all cops are bad, move to Iran. I hear the cops there are fair.

        • Tothe

          “Love it or leave it,” eh?

  • Rick Shegogue

    I have respect for all Law Enforcement Officers as long as they respect me, the police in this part of Virginia are on the look out for Nathan, just to take revenge on him calling out the actions of the Trooper, she knew she was being taped and she must explain her actions and obviously she thinks her actions are being misconstrued and she is exercising her right, just wish we had tort laws that would make the loser pay

    • April Rose

      I was pulled over by this officer today. She walked up to the passenger side door and immediately tried pulling my side van door open on the side of my mini van. I’ll be going to court on September 10 with witnesses.

      • LibertyforAll

        It is like there is something in the water out there. They have somehow become embolden to violate citizen’s rights whenever the opportunity presents itself. I am all but sure they talk amongst themselves about how difficult it is for the average citizen to get redress for rights violations so they might as well push the envelope.

        • renegadesix

          Now there is a conspiracy. Speaking of coming unhinged… Quick, look out your window and tell us if you see any black helicopters with police logos on them!

          • Rick Shegogue

            the helicopters are black but have no logos or insignia on them, no way to trace them,

          • renegadesix

            One hopes you are being sarcastic.

          • Rick Shegogue

            sorry not being sarcastic, i work around a known CIA training area and have observed on numerous occasions unmarked helicopters and being retired military used to seeing numbers and insignia on aircraft, these have neither

          • renegadesix

            See if the VA can adjust your meds, or get a better set of binoculars. ALL aircraft have markings.

          • ssn708

            You being blind does not negate conspiracy. There absolutely IS one.
            “ALL aircraft have markings”
            Thanks for proving yourself utterly clueless.

          • renegadesix

            LOL. Get back on your meds.

      • renegadesix

        I’m sure she’ll be going with a dashcam video that will make you and your witnesses out to be the criminal liars that you are.

        • April Rose

          Yes. I hope she brings the video. So you’re saying my young children and disabled vet boyfriend are criminals? You must really have some serious mental issues to make these assumptions.

          • renegadesix

            Nope. I just know the character of people like you who hate cops. Most of you are criminals. The rest are insane anarchists.

          • April Rose

            Oh! I see now! So, you’re just mental. Got it. Just because I have a problem with one officer it does not mean I hate cops. That’s insane. I googled the officers name when I got home. I have never had an officer try to rip open my van door over an expired registration. Insane. I have respect for officers that follow the law without taking their authority to inappropriate levels.

          • renegadesix

            You’re here on a cop watch (meaning “cop hating”) website complaining about a cop. The conclusion follows from the facts. If you call logic “mental”, well, I can’t stop you, but you are making yourself look foolish.

            Officers don’t rip doors open for expired registration. There is no doubt in my mind that you did something or someone in the van did something to justify her conduct. And that’s assuming you are even telling the truth about her “ripping” the door open.

          • Johannes

            moron!

          • renegadesix

            Yes, you are, thanks for playing.

          • April Rose

            I commented on an article staying what happened to me as the article is concerning an officer I had an experience with. In conclusion, I’m not surprised that this lady is involved in a lawsuit as I have never been treated that way by an officer. The end.

          • renegadesix

            Uh, she’s the one doing the suing, not Mr. Cox. You do realize that, right? She’s suing HIM for defamation, not the other way around. But you go on making up stories about cops if that makes you sleep better.

          • April Rose

            Yes I already realized this, but she’s still involved. The fact that someone posted a video of her in the first place was not surprising. Do you know this woman personally? You go ahead and sleep better thinking that all cops are good, just and perfect simply because they are supposed to be. That right there is you living in a fairytale land. Not ALL people with a leadership role/title act like they’re supposed to. I think you just look for people to fight with. Do you feel better by insulting and belittling (well, you think that’s what you are doing) people that you don’t know? You’re making asumptions regarding events you weren’t a part of.

          • renegadesix

            What? You can’t handle what you’re dishing out? You’re insulting this woman and think everyone should be nice to you at the same time? Where does that attitude even come from?

            I respect people who put themselves in harms way for others. That means I respect her and have NO respect for you.

          • April Rose

            So in your opinion, I wasn’t allowed to share my personal experience that involved this officer? You are off your rocker.

          • renegadesix

            Non sequitur much? I didn’t say you couldn’t share it. What I am saying is that if you attack someone you should darn well be ready to be attacked in return. If you can’t handle what you are dishing out, then you ought not be dishing it out.

          • April Rose

            You really should get a new hobby. You’re not making a difference or getting any point across … You’re just annoying, and I’m wasting my precious time on your stupid responses. Good luck with all that fighting and insanity you have going on there.

          • renegadesix

            I’m not the one attacking the people who protect me. That’s YOUR schtick. This is probably the best use you have EVER put to your time because you were exposed to the truth and someone who is willing to call you on your bullshit.

          • April Rose

            Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • renegadesix

            Hysterical laughter….the tears of your shame are like nectar.

          • Maria Terrano

            Aren’t you on the same website April Rose is on? Using that logic, if she is a cop hater, wouldn’t that make you one?

          • renegadesix

            Wow, not too bright are you? I suppose the critical fact that she’s complaining about cops and I’m defending them just completely eluded your notice?

          • Maria Terrano

            Actually nothing eluded me. By your response though, I think things are eluding you.

          • renegadesix

            What, specifically, is eluding me? You tried to make a smartass remark and I demonstrated the stupidity of your claim. I think I caught your drift perfectly and shut you down expertly. My “logic” was not that coming to a cop hating site makes one a cop hater. Here, let me quote it again and see if you can figure it out:

            “You’re here on a cop watch (meaning “cop hating”) website complaining about a cop.”

            Your statement about my “logic” left out the last four words of that sentence.

            Care to try again, or have you had enough?

          • Maria Terrano

            Wow. I don’t want to burst your bubble. If I do, I will take what little you have away. And I don’t want to do that. You need this.

          • renegadesix

            In short, you can’t. I accept your lame surrender.

          • Maria Terrano

            Enjoy it. I know you need it.

          • renegadesix

            Naw, just one of millions of little victories in life.

          • Maria Terrano

            I have no doubt. Keep trying and maybe one day you will have a major victory. Not likely, but we can hope.

          • renegadesix

            Oh, I have had plenty of those as well. Your projection, sock puppet, is getting the better of you.

          • Maria Terrano

            I’m happy that you think going to the bathroom by yourself is a major victory. I was hoping for something a little better though. If you are happy with that, I’m happy for you.

          • renegadesix

            That is what we call “projection.”

          • Bob Barnes

            I see, you are the type of asshole that views comment boards as a compitition. What a socially retarded online asshole. Fukkin gamer geek that has no clue how to behave. Fukkin moron.

          • renegadesix

            “Fukkin gamer geek that has no clue how to behave.”

            I’ll just highlight that and move on, Captain Hypocrite.

          • Bob Barnes

            What an asshole. Are you able to be civil with anyone, you socially retarded asshole?

          • renegadesix

            I’m quite capable of being civil when people are civil with me. As no one here has, I just return the favor “fukkin moron.”

          • Bob Green

            Your here on a copwatch sight insulting people and defending Shitty police. You are obviously a TROLL

          • renegadesix

            I’m taking the fight to the enemies of law and order and the protectors of criminals. The name calling started in your camp, cop-hater.

        • ssn708

          You are either blind, or simply a troll. Not sure which. You confuse people hating cops for people hating criminals. You’re clearly none too bright, junior.
          If you are a veteran, you are a traitor to your oath, plain and simple. It is NO ACT OF COURAGE to defend the Constitution with the world’s largest military and a billion dollars worth of hardware backing your play. It takes courage, and character, to stand alone against a well armed and trained enemy of the Constitution.
          Have you tried not being a capitulating coward?

          • renegadesix

            You should try reading the Constitution some time instead of listening to what your fellow anarchists say is in the document. I did indeed take an oath to the Constitution precisely as it is written and NOT as you want it to be. The Constitution you are talking about does not, and has never, existed. There is no Constitution which gives criminals an unfettered right to do anything they want to anybody. That’s called “anarchy,” pal, and you don’t need a written document to live in that arrangement.

    • LibertyforAll

      Rest assured, Nathan will win this case. However, don’t forget to make a donation to his legal defense fund if you can. A judge can order a frivolous lawsuit plaintiff pay legal fees. It is not common but tick them off enough and watch out.
      The cop apologists appear too self absorbed in their own righteousness to realize they should be condemning Officer Melanie McKenney. Her action will ultimately bring more cameras, more questioning of police tactics and more disdain for police officers. They will end up more restrained by the judiciary when this one is resolved.

      • renegadesix

        Why would anyone condemn her? She was 100% right and Cox was 100% wrong. He’s already been found guilty of one of the offenses he was ticketed for.

    • renegadesix

      I agree with your last clause. If we did have a loser pays system, Mr. Cox would never have received a settlement the first time.

  • John Coktosten

    You really are a Cox, aren’t you? You like Cox, don’t you? You couldn’t make it as a cop so now your life is filled with pain and jealousy and anger. You are a small man with a perceived entitled life; probably a spoiled brat growing up. If you had a job, it would be nice to have someone walk around your place of employment and record your every move, shoving a camera in your face, screaming that their rights have been violated. I hope the cop wins the lawsuit against you and you have to dip into your Mommy and Daddy’s money and become homeless. In my opinion, you are a self-entitled douchebag with low self esteem and are filled with hatred and resentment. You probably also got beat up quite a bit in school, didn’t you?

    • KC_Indiana

      What is it about this stuff that causes all you cop apologists to become so COMPLETELY unglued? My personal theory is that you are all either cops, or family members of same.

      Maybe it’s genetic. Anyone else think it’s genetic? After all, cops are about the only ones I’ve seen who become violently unhinged when confronted with even the most mild opposition.

      • John Coktosten

        “Violently unhinged”? stating what I hope happens and my impression of Nathan Cox is being unhinged? Ummm, ok. Then I am unhinged. What is it about these fame-hungry tree huggers that makes them want to grab a camera and record every contact with LEO, especially when much of it is aggressive proactive contact on the suspect’s part? Got nothing better to do all day than grab a camera and try to make contact with LEO’s, just to record the interaction and try to solicit a negative response. You should try to do someone else’s job before criticizing them on how they do it. Are there cops that shouldn’t be cops? Absolutely. As there are lawyers who shouldn’t be lawyers, and videographers that shouldn’t be videographers, and bloggers that shouldn’t be bloggers. I didn’t see anyone rushing to put this video online: http://www.tmz.com/2015/07/15/high-school-musical-justin-martin-arrested-shootout-police/ I’d say that’s pretty damn good police work there.

        • LibertyforAll

          John, with all do respect you said:

          [“You really are a Cox, aren’t you? You like Cox, don’t you? You couldn’t make it as a cop so now your life is filled with pain and jealousy and anger. You are a small man with a perceived entitled life; probably a spoiled brat growing up.”] – John Coktosten

          Is there any other way to read those opening comments besides an angry retort toward Nathan Cox? Are they valid to the debate because of your supposed impression of him? I suppose you could have said “my impression is…” but you didn’t. I highly doubt you know the man so your comments were not a true impression, they were meant to destroy Nathan’s persona/reputation at best.

          You do get to your point although you even demean Nathan with several other comments like “If you had a job”, “your Mommy and Daddy’s money”, “self entitled douchbag with low self esteem” and you try to claim altruism with the question “stating what I hope happens and my impression of Nathan Cox is being unhinged?” as if you are confused with the assertion.

          I think KC_Indiana had it right with “COMPLETELY unglued” and even “violently unhinged” in many cases on this forum.

          Your entire comment could have been wirtten as:

          How would you like it to have someone walk around your place of employment and record your every move, shoving a camera in your face, screaming that their rights have been violated. I hope the cop wins the lawsuit against you.

          Then you would not have sounded so unglued or unhinged. By don’t worry, you have a large following out there among all the cop apologists lurking about.

          • renegadesix

            BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! More civil discourse lessons on not attacking people from the guy who said “EVERY” cop is “pretty much” a liar, cheat, and a bully. The same guy who said “most” cops are “sociopaths.”

            Oh, and the guy who said he was happy that people were rioting.

            You have zero credibility in the “civil discourse” arena, scumbag. Stop trying.

      • LibertyforAll

        You know, I have noticed that myself. The level of anger is over the top. They love to use the phrase “calm down” all the while they are losing their composer, veins popping out of their heads, screaming at the top of their lungs. The ad homonym attacks on this forum are out of this world. On the earlier post about this incident a poster actually said this:

        [“Great! Don’t call them. It would be delicious poetic justice were one of your fellow “rights protectors” to take you out while exercising their “right” to your household goods. I look forward to reading your obituary.”] -renegadesix

        His defense? Claming this statement justified his saying it would be a good thing for me to be murdered.

        [The “broad brush” stroke being used to describe the police is actually very accurate Dan. Every sworn police officer is pretty much a liar, a cheat, a bully and most are sociopaths.] -LibertyforAll

        Sure, definately egregious toward LEOs, probably better left unsaid but truly something I believe. Although it will be shot down, this comment was not specific to any poster or writer with whom I was interacting. I do wish the LE community was more approachable and open to an honest dialogue instead of always being on the offensive.

        I will say the cop apologists aren’t completely alone in this regard but they certainly are the vast majority of the posts vehamently attacking specific people. You have correctly identified a phenomenon more associated with law enforcement than not. Police forces attract a certain type of individual.
        What I don’t understand is why they think it makes their opinions seem appropriate. It must be that they truly are blinded by the anger.

        • renegadesix

          “The ad homonym attacks on this forum are out of this world. ”

          Yes, they are. And you should quit calling people liars, bullies, sociopaths, and the like. See, most people don’t like it when you lie about people you don’t even know. It often draws the same kind of vitriol you dish out.

          “Sure, definately egregious toward LEOs, probably better left unsaid but truly something I believe.”

          And I truly believe that if you hate cops so much that when someone is breaking into your home you won’t call them, you deserve whatever happens to you.

          The difference between what I wrote and what you wrote? Mine really is just an expression of belief. Yours is an absolute lie in which you subsequently stuck “I believe” on it as if it made you any less of a liar.

      • renegadesix

        I’d suggest you watch the video. Cox was the one unhinged. Do what the officer tells you, don’t yell at her, don’t play keep away, and don’t resist. You do NOT have a right to keep something in your hand that can be used as a weapon in a traffic stop and NO COURT has EVER ruled that people being detained have a right to video their detention. Cox was 100% wrong and an asshole to boot.

  • Kevin Y8404

    Hope the officer takes this antagonistic prick for as much as possible; he contributes nothing and only seeks to further the rift between law enforcement and the population.

  • Pingback: Virginia Man Fights Back Against State Trooper Suing Him for $1.35 Million After He Called Her "Crazy" on a Youtube Video - PINAC()

  • Beverly

    VSP should be sued, for letting Jesse Matthews rape and murder women for more than 10 years that the police knew about. They stashed dead bodies at forensics, refused to make a simple arrest for sexual assaults, blamed and abused victims reporting these crimes to the police. Seems intentional on the part of the police when they leave a rapist out there for years, while the State sues money out of any deep pockets they can find, instead of putting a rapist in prison

  • John Healey

    THE POLICE ARE TRAINED TOO LIE CHEAT …THEY ARE TOLD NOT TOO TRUST ANY OF US,, THEY ARE TOLD NOT TOO RESPECT US SO WHY IN HELL SHOULD WE RESPECT OF TRUST THEY.. FUCK THE BLUE LINE OF LIERS…