More trouble in OAKLAND Mexifornia !

Have you been trash all your life, or is that a recent trend? Originally Posted by LexusLover

It started when I started fucking you're daughter. Things have really gone downhill since I hooked up with that skank

It started when I started fucking you're daughter. Things have really gone downhill since I hooked up with that skank Originally Posted by themystic

Your not the one with the stubby dick are you?

She said you smelled awful. She was laughing at you.

That's where I got the idea about you being trash.

Seems it began when you popped out of your whore mother's womb.

Have you found out which one is your father?

Your not the one with the stubby dick are you?

She said you smelled awful. She was laughing at you.

That's where I got the idea about you being trash.

Seems it began when you popped out of your whore mother's womb.

Have you found out which one is your father? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Lexy Liar, wow!!!

Did you learn this in church today?

I thought you were my new Dad

Did you learn this in church today?
Originally Posted by themystic

You mean you didn't go to church today?

That's ok, if you didn't. My daughter prayed for you while she was there. She was praying you'd take a bath and if you're going to keep exposing yourself to people in the grocer store at least God could help you get enough to get past the zipper. That's why she was laughing about you!

Now how many of these do you have?



Not with "Trump" on the front, of course!

With your last name instead of "Trump"!

Now how many of these do you have?



"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

How many do you have....I bet nobody on this board has multiple bankruptcies either.

What is the point here?

How many do you have....I bet nobody on this board has multiple bankruptcies either.

What is the point here? Originally Posted by WTF

How many bankruptcies does Donald Trump have?

https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/08/...-bankruptcies/

If you believe "Snopes"! That's what Trump has said, and that's what Snopes says: ZERO!

"Donald Trump has never declared personal bankruptcy .... "

So you and Mistaken are full of shit! (But that's been proven before hasn't it?)

How many did Continental have?

How many "Towers" or "Hotels" with my name on them? ... #1 That would be none of your business .. but more importantly #2:

I'm not the one claiming folks have filed bankruptcy or are deadbeats! But that's what TRASH does on the INTERNET!

And since you brought it up: TRASH also brings up fucking posters' mothers and daughters.

So I can understand why you chime in as Mistaken's White Knight!

How many bankruptcies does Donald Trump have?

How many did Continental have? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Is Continental President of the United States?

And mebbe the police officers can catch a case of " Blue Flu ' if the place is ever robbed or has any other need for police service ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Can you imagine the outrage if the cops did that.. Put stores on a 'black list'...

BUT i really scratched my head at NBC's covering of it earlier this evening.. Speaking to one o the local alderman, he said "this is an issue, but the store is just refusing to serve individual folk, not a specific group of people"..
Sorry, but how is saying "WE don't serve cops" NOT refusing to serve an entire group of people?

That's bullshit and you know it. The bakery didn't refuse to serve the homos they just wouldn't bake a cake specifically for a gay wedding. When the coffee shop is robbed or a disturbance is happening who they gonna call? Ghost busters? The cops should tell them to fuck off when they need help. Originally Posted by Budman

Especially when in one of those bakery's cases, he'd sold cakes to those gays PLENTY OF TIMES, he just did not wish to cater a gay wedding..

... the cops are obligated to respond to robberies or public disturbances as their sworn duty in the community .... the coffee shop has NO DUTY TO SERVE THE COPS!

Actually lexus, no the cops do NOT have an obligation to serve.. Check out the SCOTUS decision from 2005 iirc..
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...o-protect.html

Can you imagine the outrage if the cops did that.. Put stores on a 'black list'...

BUT i really scratched my head at NBC's covering of it earlier this evening.. Speaking to one o the local alderman, he said "this is an issue, but the store is just refusing to serve individual folk, not a specific group of people"..
Sorry, but how is saying "WE don't serve cops" NOT refusing to serve an entire group of people?



Especially when in one of those bakery's cases, he'd sold cakes to those gays PLENTY OF TIMES, he just did not wish to cater a gay wedding..



Actually lexus, no the cops do NOT have an obligation to serve.. Check out the SCOTUS decision from 2005 iirc..
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...o-protect.html Originally Posted by garhkal

Mebbe an undercover or plain clothes police officer can go into the shop, get an order of coffee and stand outside showing their badge after they leave with their purchase ! Oh ! The humanity ! Or some " anonymous " citizen can poke their head in the front door of the shop during a busy time and scream " LA MIGRA ! LA MIGRA ! "
Or mebbe I.C.E. can go by there and see what snowflake " customers and employees " are A-SKEERED of when it comes to uniformed personnel !

Actually lexus, no the cops do NOT have an obligation to serve.. Check out the SCOTUS decision from 2005 iirc..
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...o-protect.html Originally Posted by garhkal

Actually, they do. Have you seen their policies?

The first paragraph of the article you linked:

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

I'll repeat to stress the point: "police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm"....

... so you are wrong on "the law"! You carefully omitted the "constitutional part"!

How the officer responds to a particular call is discretionary, which means that with a few exceptions the officer does not HAVE to make a warrantless arrest someone, even when the offense is committed in their presence....if their departmental policy is different then they may get administrative action within the department and/or civil liability based on failing to comply with policy.

I didn't bother to look at the SC case, because historically the SCOTUS defines the boundaries of police action as opposed to the obligations they have to the community that hired them. The LE took an oath and agreed to the policies and procedures of the department. BTW: Before you go there .. customarily the policies and procedures of LE departments follow a format except for minute details that may be specific for their particular jurisdiction....responding to calls for service within their jurisdiction and extraterratorial jurisdiction is not one of the details.

But your diversion away from the posted reason why this officer went into the coffee shop is not relevant. Only trying to change the subject ... he went in to get a cup of coffee ... not a call for service at that location. Is your objection that illegals drink coffee there, but not police?

Your statement:

"Especially when in one of those bakery's cases, he'd sold cakes to those gays PLENTY OF TIMES, he just did not wish to cater a gay wedding."

... is not relevant. #1: Gays are a protected class if discriminated against as such and #2: the bakery served "gays" (how they knew I don't have a clue, but perhaps they have a "gayness" meter at the door), but their objection was their religious beliefs regarding "gay marriage," which they were asked to facilitate. That is apples and oranges as far as refusing to serve uniformed officers.

Do you know any bars in the community that serve uniformed officers alcoholic beverages?

This is from the Oakland PD ... website regarding their effort to increase responses to "robberies" ..

Strategy: Assign Additional Robbery Investigators to CID for Patrol Areas.
Deadline: TBD. Responsible: TBD.

At present, OPD has a very limited ability to respond to crimes that have just occurred.
Because of the extraordinarily high call volume and very limited resources, Oakland Police
preliminary investigations are insufficient, even for serious crimes such as robbery. The results
are critical failures in three areas: an inability to gather information from victims when memory is
strongest; an inability to interview witnesses before they have left the area; and an inability to
apprehend robbery suspects before they flee. Dedicating sworn personnel to be able to
respond immediately to robberies that have just occurred will greatly increase opportunities to
obtain useful information from victims and witnesses as well as opportunities to arrest suspects.
In addition to being able to respond immediately to robberies, these officers would be able to
perform necessary follow-up investigative work when not investigating a crime that just
occurred. This follow-up investigative work would allow traditional CID Robbery Section
Investigators to perform other investigative functions.
Resources: Five additional Sergeants of Police and 30 additional Police Officers and
associated equipment in CID.
Funding Sources: General Purpose Fund appropriation is required for ongoing personnel
costs.

Disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity is a "constitutional violation." So, although there may not be a "constitutional duty" to respond to criminal activity, there is a "constitutional duty" NOT to withhold responses based on race or ethnicity, just as much as there is a "constitutional duty" NOT to respond based on race or ethnicity ... e.g. ONLY responding to "White" owned businesses.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/10...-officers.html

If this is all the Oakland PD has to worry about then they've been doing a good job of policing the community, which doesn't seem to be the case.

There has traditionally been "bad blood" between "minority" groups and the LE community, which doesn't change by the selection of the Chief to fit an agenda or desired image. And going into the business in uniform and asking for a cup of coffee is not "community policing"!

If this is all the Oakland PD has to worry about then they've been doing a good job of policing the community, which doesn't seem to be the case.

There has traditionally been "bad blood" between "minority" groups and the LE community, which doesn't change by the selection of the Chief to fit an agenda or desired image. And going into the business in uniform and asking for a cup of coffee is not "community policing"!

The report I heard is the cop went into the shop to meet the owners and talk to them about setting up an on going meet the police (spanish speaking) type service. My understanding is it would be a chance for the community to meet and talk to a cop in a friendly atmosphere.