What is up with people quoting people and adding to it?!?!?!
- Thread starter HERESY
- Start date
My teacher TEACHES THIS STUFF FOR A LIVING! Why would I believe YOU over him? Second of all he hits the the concord pd ONCE A MONTH. Third of all he does ride alongs with his son (who is a SF officer) so this DESTROYS your ENTIRE argument that he hasn't been in a new car, and the implied argument of he doesn't know because he is retired.
Again, my teacher = at the police department EVERY MONTH and doing ride alongs with his SON (which would place him INSIDE of a new vehicle DUMMY.)
Your sources = ???????????????????? :dead:
Again, my teacher = at the police department EVERY MONTH and doing ride alongs with his SON (which would place him INSIDE of a new vehicle DUMMY.)
Your sources = ???????????????????? :dead:
I don't believe I ever said every police department lacked video recording devices and lap tops. What I initially said was, "Pure life, cops don't have access to your records when they pull you over. They can see if you have a warrant, but in no shape for or fashion can they just look at your record (ON THE SPOT) and decide what action to take."
The cops don't have access part was clarified later on. The part about looking at your record and deciding on what action to take was clarified when I said it was ILLEGAL (which is also what my teacher said.)
You have provided no source to validate this claim. Since you have provided no source no one believes you. You've had ample time to provide a source and you have been asked for it SEVERAL TIMES. However, you have FAILED to provide substantial proof, so your claim is rejected. Again, I am getting my numbers from my teacher, and I have books that basically say the same thing. You don't have ANYTHING. Case closed.
Not all of them can. Many departments have different computers. Some CAN access your record, your picture, and even the FBI data base, but others are LIMITED in what their computers can do, and still rely on DISPATCH to give them updates on criminal history and warrant checks (even when a computer is in the car.)
SEE ABOVE.
Read this again, dummy:
I don't have to rely on my teacher to validate my claim, but I am relying on him for the time being because he is a more credible source than you, and I don't need to post up the info from the books just yet.
Still living in the 60's and 70's? LMAO! And you are still living in the back of a police car, sir. How are you aware of the new technology? Because you work for the police department? Because your uncle works for them? Because they just happened to give you a print out of all of your history, and you just happened to have it on file to where you can post it here? You just happened to be able to format it correctly and put it in bold font (to match how it really looks), yet you make a gazillion typo's, construct run-on sentences and molest the english language? Sure, Gilligan. :dead:
Sure pal.
Thanks for speaking from experience.
Yet, SEVERAL people here are asking you to prove your claim, and some of them are openly saying YOU CAN'T. LMAO!
The cops don't have access part was clarified later on. The part about looking at your record and deciding on what action to take was clarified when I said it was ILLEGAL (which is also what my teacher said.)
You have provided no source to validate this claim. Since you have provided no source no one believes you. You've had ample time to provide a source and you have been asked for it SEVERAL TIMES. However, you have FAILED to provide substantial proof, so your claim is rejected. Again, I am getting my numbers from my teacher, and I have books that basically say the same thing. You don't have ANYTHING. Case closed.
Not all of them can. Many departments have different computers. Some CAN access your record, your picture, and even the FBI data base, but others are LIMITED in what their computers can do, and still rely on DISPATCH to give them updates on criminal history and warrant checks (even when a computer is in the car.)
SEE ABOVE.
Read this again, dummy:
I don't have to rely on my teacher to validate my claim, but I am relying on him for the time being because he is a more credible source than you, and I don't need to post up the info from the books just yet.
Still living in the 60's and 70's? LMAO! And you are still living in the back of a police car, sir. How are you aware of the new technology? Because you work for the police department? Because your uncle works for them? Because they just happened to give you a print out of all of your history, and you just happened to have it on file to where you can post it here? You just happened to be able to format it correctly and put it in bold font (to match how it really looks), yet you make a gazillion typo's, construct run-on sentences and molest the english language? Sure, Gilligan. :dead:
Sure pal.
Thanks for speaking from experience.
Yet, SEVERAL people here are asking you to prove your claim, and some of them are openly saying YOU CAN'T. LMAO!
When asked about the information you claim is yours and if it was PRE Project 54 or if it is TACNET, you didn't give a logical or informative answer.
So, the new question is what makes YOU an expert on police car computers across the entire united states, and where are you getting your numbers from?
So, the new question is what makes YOU an expert on police car computers across the entire united states, and where are you getting your numbers from?
Everyone, pay attention. This guy is a TOTAL MORON. He was given AMPLE TIME to prove his claims, and now he comes with links that STILL don't validate his claims. Watch how I make him look like an even bigger idiot (which is something I didn't know were possible.)
In regards to the first link, how does ANYTHING in that link validate your position? In fact it validates what I have been saying.
Here is an excerpt:
What have I been saying? I have been saying all squad cars do NOT have computers. This is VALIDATED by the article stating SEVERAL CITIES have them AND that some are still CONSIDERING THEM. IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING SOMETHING YOU DON'T HAVE IT YET.
But, your claim is ALL but 10% of squad cars have computers AND video cameras. LMAO!
Again, lets take a look at something else presented in the article:
Again, what have I been saying? I've been saying a lot of squad cars have computers that are LIMITED in what they can bring up and your article EVEN SAYS IT! LMAO!!!!!!
Here let us look at another:
Haven't I not spoke about this? The delay times and relying on dispatch for information?
Sorry guy, you loose on that one. But, I'm going to butcher every link you posted. Lets go to the next link.
Lets pay attention to the opening statement.
Dearest, dummy this article (like the one before it) is dealing with specific cities. The Chicago police department does NOT represent 90% of this nations police force.
Now lets take a look at something else from that article:
Again, the older computers have access to LIMITED information (something I already stated), but the article says NOTHING about criminal record access.
And now lets finish this up and give a bit of insight as to why some cities still are behind:
Again, this validates what I have been saying. They have the MONEY to pay for the system. Departments that are strapped for cash and NOT getting anything from homeland security grants or other financial outlets/sources are NOT able to upgrade.
Link two destroyed lets go to link three.
SEVEN CAMERAS AND SIX LAP TOPS? LMAO!!!!!! Out of how many squad cars for that city? Oh yeah...THAT CITY. Again, this article and what is going on in that city does NOT reflect what is going on in the departments in the u.s.
Let's take a look at another part of your link that validates what I previously said:
:dead: x your entire argument. It just went down the drain with that one, junior. What have I been saying? Police departments have outdated equipement, and the ones that do have access to new toys do so because they have the means to do it.
Finally, lets validate something else I said, and of course we'll use your link to do it:
Again, what have I said? VIDEO CAMERAS are more expensive than the lap tops. Now, use the oatmeal between your head to answer he question.
If video cameras are more expensive than computers, and the majority of squad cars have outdated computers, how can 90% of this nations police department have video and new computers if they don't have the means (or barely have the means) to afford it? :dead:
Finally, your last link:
I'll murder you with one excerpt (although I can post 4)
(emphasis mine)
lmao!!! Your entire argument is down the drain.
In regards to the first link, how does ANYTHING in that link validate your position? In fact it validates what I have been saying.
Here is an excerpt:
What have I been saying? I have been saying all squad cars do NOT have computers. This is VALIDATED by the article stating SEVERAL CITIES have them AND that some are still CONSIDERING THEM. IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING SOMETHING YOU DON'T HAVE IT YET.
But, your claim is ALL but 10% of squad cars have computers AND video cameras. LMAO!
Again, lets take a look at something else presented in the article:
Again, what have I been saying? I've been saying a lot of squad cars have computers that are LIMITED in what they can bring up and your article EVEN SAYS IT! LMAO!!!!!!
Here let us look at another:
Haven't I not spoke about this? The delay times and relying on dispatch for information?
Sorry guy, you loose on that one. But, I'm going to butcher every link you posted. Lets go to the next link.
Lets pay attention to the opening statement.
Dearest, dummy this article (like the one before it) is dealing with specific cities. The Chicago police department does NOT represent 90% of this nations police force.
Now lets take a look at something else from that article:
Again, the older computers have access to LIMITED information (something I already stated), but the article says NOTHING about criminal record access.
And now lets finish this up and give a bit of insight as to why some cities still are behind:
Again, this validates what I have been saying. They have the MONEY to pay for the system. Departments that are strapped for cash and NOT getting anything from homeland security grants or other financial outlets/sources are NOT able to upgrade.
Link two destroyed lets go to link three.
SEVEN CAMERAS AND SIX LAP TOPS? LMAO!!!!!! Out of how many squad cars for that city? Oh yeah...THAT CITY. Again, this article and what is going on in that city does NOT reflect what is going on in the departments in the u.s.
Let's take a look at another part of your link that validates what I previously said:
:dead: x your entire argument. It just went down the drain with that one, junior. What have I been saying? Police departments have outdated equipement, and the ones that do have access to new toys do so because they have the means to do it.
Finally, lets validate something else I said, and of course we'll use your link to do it:
Again, what have I said? VIDEO CAMERAS are more expensive than the lap tops. Now, use the oatmeal between your head to answer he question.
If video cameras are more expensive than computers, and the majority of squad cars have outdated computers, how can 90% of this nations police department have video and new computers if they don't have the means (or barely have the means) to afford it? :dead:
Finally, your last link:
I'll murder you with one excerpt (although I can post 4)
(emphasis mine)
lmao!!! Your entire argument is down the drain.
First of all, no one is bickering. However, this guy came out the blue with something sideways, so I have the right to continue to make him look like an idiot. Also, we have thousands of cities in the country and you getting pulled over in one city and seeing new toys or info pertaining to your record does not mean you'll get teh same results in the next city after that, or the next city after that or the one after that one.
LMAO! Your argument has been blown out of the water. For all we know ALL of those departments could have yanked those computers out or could have failed to finish paying for them because of budget cuts.
You were given PLENTY of time to provide ample evidence to support your claim. You failed, just like you failed at life, and just like you failed at trying to prove a point here. I just proved your links prove me right, yet you'll continue to look stupid anyway because you need my attention. Make your next reply your last.
You were given PLENTY of time to provide ample evidence to support your claim. You failed, just like you failed at life, and just like you failed at trying to prove a point here. I just proved your links prove me right, yet you'll continue to look stupid anyway because you need my attention. Make your next reply your last.
