Muslim Opens Fire On Philly Cop In Car

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

No. The burden is on the accuser. That would be YOU!

You must have learned your "burdens" and "proofs" in "Squad Leader School" while you were learning how to avoid ambushes .....

.. since you've been ambushed numerous times!!!!

I told you that you are getting a lot like WTF ... he ...

makes the facts
makes the opposition's posts
makes the rules
makes the calls
and declares himself the "winner"!!!!

The evidence was quoted and cited, you supercilious jackass; so, the burden is back on your supercilious ass to deal matter-of-factly with the points of criticism raised by the experts, and your out of hand dismissal of their expert opinion doesn't qualify expert rebuttal, you supercilious jackass.

[Guest021217]

Its Dorthy Damnit Not Dorothy grrrrr

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The evidence was quoted and cited, .....

The only EVIDENCE I've seen are videos ... and your admission that the officers' patrol until ONLY SLID 28 FEET ......

The rest is unsubstantiated and untested opinion based upon someone who wasn't there!

You're about as good at "proving" shit as you are avoiding ambushes.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The only EVIDENCE I've seen are videos ... and your admission that the officers' patrol until ONLY SLID 28 FEET ......

The rest is unsubstantiated and untested opinion based upon someone who wasn't there!

You're about as good at "proving" shit as you are avoiding ambushes.

The same evidence critiqued by noteworthy experts who draw entirely different conclusions while the only evidence you've offered has been nothing but ass and face, you supercilious jackass.

[Yssup Rider]

HI, JACK!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

...by noteworthy experts .....

....footnote worthy is the best they got ....

But YOU QUALIFIED THEM AS EXPERTS?

YouRong (God bless him) is an "expert" on Nau's Drug .....

.. and he doesn't even know where the damn thing is located!!!!!!!

And when confronted with a CITY OF AUSTIN OFFICIAL MAP ...

.... can't read the damn thing!!!!!

You and your self-authenticated "expert" don't even know how fast the patrol unit was traveling when the brakes were applied to create the skid marks ...

Or .. if you do know you don't want to admit it!!!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

....footnote worthy is the best they got ....

But YOU QUALIFIED THEM AS EXPERTS?

YouRong (God bless him) is an "expert" on Nau's Drug .....

.. and he doesn't even know where the damn thing is located!!!!!!!

And when confronted with a CITY OF AUSTIN OFFICIAL MAP ...

.... can't read the damn thing!!!!!

You and your self-authenticated "expert" don't even know how fast the patrol unit was traveling when the brakes were applied to create the skid marks ...

Or .. if you do know you don't want to admit it!!!

Your supercilious ass loses to Noble's expert opinion every time, you supercilious jackass.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

HI, JACK!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your supercilious ass loses to Noble's expert opinion every time, you supercilious jackass.

According to you! And you alone!

That's the bottom line.

Mr. Nobles and I have not had THE "discussion" yet about the "factual" basis of "his expert opinion" .... and until we do ... "his expert opinion" ain't worth the paper from which you "cut and paste"! And more importantly, it's not "admissible" until the underlying factual basis for his opinion is admitted into evidence. And it hasn't been!

And your opinion is worth less than his, because yours is based on his!

Or are you still basing your expertise on the "Squadron Leader Training" of yours?

Now how fast was the patrol unit traveling when the driver hit the brakes?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

According to you! And you alone!

That's the bottom line.

Mr. Nobles and I have not had THE "discussion" yet about the "factual" basis of "his expert opinion" .... and until we do ... "his expert opinion" ain't worth the paper from which you "cut and paste"! And more importantly, it's not "admissible" until the underlying factual basis for his opinion is admitted into evidence. And it hasn't been!

And your opinion is worth less than his, because yours is based on his!

Or are you still basing your expertise on the "Squadron Leader Training" of yours?

Now how fast was the patrol unit traveling when the driver hit the brakes?

Your supercilious ass loses to Noble's expert opinion every time, you supercilious jackass, and the cops were recklessly driving almost 20 mph through a muddy playground.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your supercilious ass loses to Noble's expert opinion every time, you supercilious jackass, and the cops were recklessly driving almost 20 mph through a muddy playground.

I asked you how fast the patrol unit was traveling when the brakes were applied causing 28 feet of skid marks on the grass. You can't answer that!

So you make up some stupid shit. And now the "Squadron Leader Training" ambush expert, that would be you, has opined that the officers were driving "recklessly" .... You just keep getting deeper in your own bullshit.

First it was "charging" ... now it's "almost 20 mph" ....

Like I said .... you (and Nobles) have the burden of proof ... not me. Neither one of you would withstand a fundamental/basic cross from a new graduate from law school. You are both full of shit.

Since you've never driven a patrol unit in a "live fire" situation in response to a dispatcher's call while looking for a potential shooter ... (and don't know if Nobles has either!!!) .... you just make up shit .... trying to use military training as a basis for your critique ...... thinking I know nothing about either ..... because ...??????

.... you know all about me and my history???????

You don't even know Nobles' history!!! And you are touting him as an "expert"!!!!!!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I asked you how fast the patrol unit was traveling when the brakes were applied causing 28 feet of skid marks on the grass. You can't answer that!

So you make up some stupid shit. And now the "Squadron Leader Training" ambush expert, that would be you, has opined that the officers were driving "recklessly" .... You just keep getting deeper in your own bullshit.

First it was "charging" ... now it's "almost 20 mph" ....

Like I said .... you (and Nobles) have the burden of proof ... not me. Neither one of you would withstand a fundamental/basic cross from a new graduate from law school. You are both full of shit.

Since you've never driven a patrol unit in a "live fire" situation in response to a dispatcher's call while looking for a potential shooter ... (and don't know if Nobles has either!!!) .... you just make up shit .... trying to use military training as a basis for your critique ...... thinking I know nothing about either ..... because ...??????

.... you know all about me and my history???????

You don't even know Nobles' history!!! And you are touting him as an "expert"!!!!!!

If you'd been smart enough to actually read the reports quoted and cited, you supercilious jackass, you'd have noticed that forensics determined that the cops were doing about 20 MPH. Hence, your supercilious question was already answered before you asked it, you supercilious jackass. It was also determined that 20 MPH on a playground with a muddy surface where there were children playing was reckless, i.e., "charging", you supercilious jackass, and it demonstrates -- per the experts (WHICH YOU ARE NOT) -- that the cops employed reckless and unsound tactics.

[Guest021217]

This thread is awesome