[jamm0nit]

so i went to a high school graduation and when i came out there was a cop car parked behind me on a red which is nothing new to me since they park wherever they want to park. so i went to eat at a restaurant with a friend and when we came out i saw this really noticeable mark on my back bumper. i was so mad and i knew it must have been the cop because that was the only car that parked behind me and that mark was not there to begin with.

is there any way to fix it without replacing the entire bumper? :dunno:

 

[THAiPHOON]

Ouch, that ****s. You could apply some touchup paint and clear coat and buff it out with some polishing compound. Won't look the same, but it would look better at least.

 

[Aviography]

Sure, go to a bodyshop to get it looked after.

 

[phunctional]

get the rear lip. LOL

 

[04PinoyAccord]

You're damn right they park where they want because if an emergency comes out you better bet they get to their cars damn fast, Ignorant douche.

 

[jeffislouie]

You're damn right they park where they want because if an emergency comes out you better bet they get to their cars damn fast, Ignorant douche.

Wow, someone feels a little aggressive.
By the way, do you think that gives them license to do damage to citizens vehicles as well?
And they need to park wherever they want in case of emergency? Very logical, and also inherently ignorant. Especially since no one could possibly understand what you mean when you say "if an emergency comes out". Out of what? Dope.
For all you know, the cop car could have been there because the cop was too lazy to park in a spot while he ran across the street to buy coffee.
I'll tell you what IS clear: you are the "ignorant douche". You logged onto the forum so you could call a member of our community names?
The OP's statement didn't include even a hint of anger or disapproval towards the officers need to park wherever they want. You inferred that, probably because you are an 'ignorant douche'. And guess what, knucklehead? Cops can park just like the rest of us. There is absolutely no way that having to walk an extra 20 feet to a legal parking spot is going to make any difference in an emergency situation.
Let me ask you this, genius: What if the owner of the vehicle had an emergency situation? Could an illegally parked cop car potentially be responsible for a disaster? What if, say, his wife went into labor and he needed to exit the parking lot and drive to a hospital? Should the private citizen have to wait for some cop to move his squad car just because the cop felt his illegal parking was more convenient?
I am good friends with quite a few police officers and I can tell you, after speaking to them about this scenario, the correct course of behavior is to dial the police and let them know that car # XXXX is blocking your vehicle and is parked illegally. If it is in response to an emergency, the officer on the phone will tell you. If not, they will radio to the officers assigned to the vehicle to move their car as soon as possible. Police officers are not supposed to park illegally unless it is absolutely necessary or they are responding to an emergency. They are supposed to park just like everyone else, except in certain circumstances. One of my friends is a supervisor who said that every once in a while, he'll find out that some of the guys he oversees engage in this behavior and he spends just a little more time chewing their ass.
The incorrect response is to call people who came here to talk about it an 'ignorant douche'. Especially because it has unintended consequences, like making everyone who reads your comment think that you, sir, are the douche who is ignorant.
Most importantly, stop being a jerk. If you have nothing to say (which clearly, you don't), just don't say anything. Especially if what you end up saying is stupid, incorrect, and illustrative of your very limited knowledge.

edit: I just looked at your profile and realized you claim to be a police officer. Interesting, mainly because most cops who behave the way you have tend to be the 'bad' ones, who think they are better, smarter, and more entitled to respect than the citizens they are sworn to protect. Guys like you lose consistently in court because in all of your ****iness and bravado, you always make mistakes, mainly due to the fact that you don't take the time to actually pay attention or learn the law. One bad cop ruins the image for the entire force. What a shame!
I got pulled over once for wearing a Chicago police leather jacket. The cop, after giving me 10 minutes of flack (mostly for driving a nice car), actually said "In a time when people hate cops, it looks like you want to pretend that you are one." My response was "Gee, after the way you've treated me, I wonder why people hate cops?" After busting my nutz for another 10 minutes, he realized that he had nothing to ticket me for, that he made an invalid stop, that I was lawyered up, and that he should probably shut his moronic mouth. So I politely asked him for his star number, he drove away and I called in my beef to the Sargent. I bet he had a lovely conversation after that.
Any chance you would volunteer your star number and your police district? I wonder if your supervisor would agree with one of his officers claims that doing damage to a citizens property and parking illegally is permissible in case an emergency ever breaks out?

 

[Dreamacre]

You're damn right they park where they want because if an emergency comes out you better bet they get to their cars damn fast, Ignorant douche.

I agree with you that the cops were Ignorant Douches.


Just because someone is a Cop, doesn't mean they are respectful of others.

 

[BMBaccord]

@jeffislouie.

You really put him in his place. I completely agree with you and props for taking all the time to type all that. It is unfortunate we live in a society where things like the cop situation happen, often. It is never fun being the one getting pulled over for nothing or having a cop damage your personal property. This forum has benefited me greatly and I feel that I may have contributed a lot back as well. I love this forum and people who name call can go back to youtube and not be here.

GO Driveaccord.net!!!! And jeffislouie!!!

:thmsup: :thmsup: :thmsup:

 

[04PinoyAccord]

I am not a police officer, Also when I mean ''Emergency Comes Out'' Meaning over the hand held radio.

Edit - My profile did say I am an Officer, Edited to blank.

 

[Markus]

But in all of this there is ZERO evidence that a cop actually caused this damage ...

 

[Markus]

Wow, someone feels a little aggressive.
By the way, do you think that gives them license to do damage to citizens vehicles as well?

There is no evidence that said cop damaged anything.

And they need to park wherever they want in case of emergency? Very logical, and also inherently ignorant. Especially since no one could possibly understand what you mean when you say "if an emergency comes out". Out of what? Dope.

Dope? Who's being aggressive now?

For all you know, the cop car could have been there because the cop was too lazy to park in a spot while he ran across the street to buy coffee.

And for all you know he wasn't. So what?

I'll tell you what IS clear: you are the "ignorant douche". You logged onto the forum so you could call a member of our community names?

Which is exactly what you did.

The OP's statement didn't include even a hint of anger or disapproval towards the officers need to park wherever they want. You inferred that, probably because you are an 'ignorant douche'. And guess what, knucklehead? Cops can park just like the rest of us. There is absolutely no way that having to walk an extra 20 feet to a legal parking spot is going to make any difference in an emergency situation.

Such anger and aggressiveness.

Let me ask you this, genius: What if the owner of the vehicle had an emergency situation? Could an illegally parked cop car potentially be responsible for a disaster? What if, say, his wife went into labor and he needed to exit the parking lot and drive to a hospital? Should the private citizen have to wait for some cop to move his squad car just because the cop felt his illegal parking was more convenient?

Was the cop blocking anybody? Not according to the OP.

I am good friends with quite a few police officers and I can tell you, after speaking to them about this scenario, the correct course of behavior is to dial the police and let them know that car # XXXX is blocking your vehicle and is parked illegally. If it is in response to an emergency, the officer on the phone will tell you. If not, they will radio to the officers assigned to the vehicle to move their car as soon as possible. Police officers are not supposed to park illegally unless it is absolutely necessary or they are responding to an emergency. They are supposed to park just like everyone else, except in certain circumstances. One of my friends is a supervisor who said that every once in a while, he'll find out that some of the guys he oversees engage in this behavior and he spends just a little more time chewing their ass.

Agreed. But why are you writing about cops blocking people? That's not what this thread is about. According to the OP the cop was blocking nobody.

The incorrect response is to call people who came here to talk about it an 'ignorant douche'. Especially because it has unintended consequences, like making everyone who reads your comment think that you, sir, are the douche who is ignorant.

The incorrect response of the OP was to accuse the cop of damaging his car with zero proof.

Most importantly, stop being a jerk. If you have nothing to say (which clearly, you don't), just don't say anything. Especially if what you end up saying is stupid, incorrect, and illustrative of your very limited knowledge.

What's good for the goose ...

edit: I just looked at your profile and realized you claim to be a police officer. Interesting, mainly because most cops who behave the way you have tend to be the 'bad' ones, who think they are better, smarter, and more entitled to respect than the citizens they are sworn to protect. Guys like you lose consistently in court because in all of your ****iness and bravado, you always make mistakes, mainly due to the fact that you don't take the time to actually pay attention or learn the law. One bad cop ruins the image for the entire force. What a shame!
I got pulled over once for wearing a Chicago police leather jacket. The cop, after giving me 10 minutes of flack (mostly for driving a nice car), actually said "In a time when people hate cops, it looks like you want to pretend that you are one." My response was "Gee, after the way you've treated me, I wonder why people hate cops?" After busting my nutz for another 10 minutes, he realized that he had nothing to ticket me for, that he made an invalid stop, that I was lawyered up, and that he should probably shut his moronic mouth. So I politely asked him for his star number, he drove away and I called in my beef to the Sargent. I bet he had a lovely conversation after that.
Any chance you would volunteer your star number and your police district? I wonder if your supervisor would agree with one of his officers claims that doing damage to a citizens property and parking illegally is permissible in case an emergency ever breaks out?

Wow. Just wow. Once again, where's the proof that the cop did any damage? I don't know about the law in Chicago but wearing a cop's jacket in the jacket's jurisdiction would get you arrested for impersonating an officer in most places ...

 

[jeffislouie]

A very special thank you to Markus for adding to the deterioration of an otherwise reasonable thread. Awesome work. You sure "got me".
You must be proud.
As for the 'no proof' that a cop caused the damage, fair enough. The OP implied that he believed it was the officer that caused the damage. Since neither you (nor I) were there, we are in no place to prove that the officer did not cause the damage. Clearly the OP believes that is what happened. He has no requirement to prove to you or anyone that the officer caused the damage.
Since you like arguing line by line, let's try and put this to rest:
You wrote: "The incorrect response if the OP to accuse the cop of damaging his car with zero proof."
The OP wrote: "i knew it must have been the cop because that was the only car that parked behind me and that mark was not there to begin with."
That's all the proof necessary for him to say what he said. This isn't a court of law.
You wrote: "Once again, where's the proof that the cop did any damage?"
Again, see the above.
The rest of your post seems to be attempting to do precisely what I was attempting to do: correct what appears to be bad behavior. The difference is that I attempted to explain that the response to the OP was inappropriate because in his response, he directly attacked the OP as an "ignorant douche". I still don't see the point of leaving that comment, especially since it was completely uncalled for. See, his post seems to imply that cops can do whatever they want because they are cops. That argument ****s, especially when the OP believes it was the cop who caused damage to his vehicle. While he cannot "prove" anything, he isn't trying to. He's venting. Which makes him just another guy. His post was about what he should do to fix the damage.
You, on the other hand, decided not to address that. You decided, instead, to make the pointless argument that the OP has no proof that the cop caused the damage (which is of no consequence, much like calling someone an ignorant douche is of no consequence). Then you decided, 'hey, I've already wasted space posting in this thread. I'll waste more space reiterating my comment that no one cares about and show the guy who went after the guy who called the OP names by going after him for doing something I disapprove of, because when I do it, it is important and meaningful. When other people do precisely what I'm about to do right now, they deserve to be subjected to my ramblings."
Here's the bigger picture (besides your hilarious hypocrisy). Jamm0nit is a member of this community. The cop who (allegedly) caused the damage is a nondescript, anonymous police officer. Maybe we (as a community) should shy away from trying to protect anonymous potential causes of damage and focus a little more on helping out those in our actual community.
Or, you know, keep doing what you are doing. You've sure added a lot to this thread by defending a member who posted that another member of this forum is an "ignorant douche" and demanding proof of such a heinous allegation! Good for you! YOU ARE THE WINNER! Thanks to you and 04PinoyAccord, the OP is sure to be able to take care of the scuffs on his bumper!

 

[Markus]

A very special thank you to Markus for adding to the deterioration of an otherwise reasonable thread. Awesome work. You sure "got me".
You must be proud.
As for the 'no proof' that a cop caused the damage, fair enough. The OP implied that he believed it was the officer that caused the damage. Since neither you (nor I) were there, we are in no place to prove that the officer did not cause the damage. Clearly the OP believes that is what happened. He has no requirement to prove to you or anyone that the officer caused the damage.

What happened until innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?? Does that not apply to cops? The thread became unreasonable with your initial rant, in my opinion.

Since you like arguing line by line, let's try and put this to rest:
You wrote: "The incorrect response if the OP to accuse the cop of damaging his car with zero proof."
The OP wrote: "i knew it must have been the cop because that was the only car that parked behind me and that mark was not there to begin with."
That's all the proof necessary for him to say what he said. This isn't a court of law.

That's right, it's not a court a court of law. And, as you seem smart enough, you well know that there is zero proof here. For all the OP knows the cop pulled out and another car pulled in in place of the cop, scratched the OP's car, and took off.


Your entire rant is based on nothing more than "the OP believes the cop damaged his car".

You wrote: "Once again, where's the proof that the cop did any damage?"
Again, see the above.
The rest of your post seems to be attempting to do precisely what I was attempting to do: correct what appears to be bad behavior. The difference is that I attempted to explain that the response to the OP was inappropriate because in his response, he directly attacked the OP as an "ignorant douche". I still don't see the point of leaving that comment, especially since it was completely uncalled for. See, his post seems to imply that cops can do whatever they want because they are cops. That argument ****s, especially when the OP believes it was the cop who caused damage to his vehicle. While he cannot "prove" anything, he isn't trying to. He's venting. Which makes him just another guy. His post was about what he should do to fix the damage.
You, on the other hand, decided not to address that. You decided, instead, to make the pointless argument that the OP has no proof that the cop caused the damage (which is of no consequence, much like calling someone an ignorant douche is of no consequence). Then you decided, 'hey, I've already wasted space posting in this thread. I'll waste more space reiterating my comment that no one cares about and show the guy who went after the guy who called the OP names by going after him for doing something I disapprove of, because when I do it, it is important and meaningful. When other people do precisely what I'm about to do right now, they deserve to be subjected to my ramblings."
Here's the bigger picture (besides your hilarious hypocrisy). Jamm0nit is a member of this community. The cop who (allegedly) caused the damage is a nondescript, anonymous police officer. Maybe we (as a community) should shy away from trying to protect anonymous potential causes of damage and focus a little more on helping out those in our actual community.
Or, you know, keep doing what you are doing. You've sure added a lot to this thread by defending a member who posted that another member of this forum is an "ignorant douche" and demanding proof of such a heinous allegation! Good for you! YOU ARE THE WINNER! Thanks to you and 04PinoyAccord, the OP is sure to be able to take care of the scuffs on his bumper!

What a rant!

It's you who's not getting it. You initially responded, hypocritically, to an aggressive post with an even more aggressive one of your own, calling out the initial aggressiveness. And then you add in a bunch of "what ifs" and other hypothetical situations in order to prove, well, I don't really know. And in what way did your rant help the OP take the scuffs off the bumper? Did you address that? Seeing as it's so important to you I must assume you simply forgot to add that little bit of information to your rant!

I defended nobody, by the way. It seems your reading comprehension is not what it could be if you really think I did defend somebody. All I did was point out the errors of your not-helpful-to-the-OP rant. Sorry if you can't take the heat.

 

[yemenemey]

Grow up

 

[jeffislouie]

Thanks again, Markus, for proving how smart you are.
Especially for these diametrically opposed statements that show that your only intention is to stir things up:
"What happened until innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?? Does that not apply to cops?"
then
"That's right, it's not a court a court of law."

To answer your question (since I am a law student and law clerk), generally speaking, innocent until proven guilty applies only to criminal charges (none of which were alleged). It applies to officers too (when they are accused of a crime). However, as I've stated (and you've reiterated), this ISN'T A COURT OF LAW! Since it isn't a court of law, there is no requirement of guilt or innocence, nor is there any requirement of proof. Especially when the OP wasn't asking how to get the cops to pay for the damage.
I guess I needed to prove that to you to satiate your anger. So be it.
Again, my post (and I'd appreciate it if you would simply accept this rather than try to 'win' - you can't) was intended to do one thing: correct what I considered bad behavior. Why did I think it was bad behavior? Because that post was a direct attack on the OP (in that the post called the OP an "ignorant douche"). What IS hilarious is that you keep arguing with me by doing precisely what you are chastising me for doing. I know you don't get it, but it is hilarious. Me: Don't call posters "ignorant douches" when you don't know what happened. You: How dare you tell someone not to call other posters "ignorant douches" when the OP can't prove that the cop caused the damage! Only I get to correct behavior that I deem inappropriate!
Great argument. You should be allowed to skip law school and be admitted to the Bar right away.
So, because you are too wise and smart to realize just how silly you are being, I won't post again about this. If you wish to continue to berate someone for calling someone out for using ad hominem attack, perhaps you would be better served by PM-ing them instead.
For the record, I especially enjoyed you proving how great you are by calling my reading comprehension into question. You ARE defending the 'cop' by saying that the OP has NO PROOF that the cop caused the damage. Of course, the OP stated that he believed the cop did the damage because (and I'll quote him - AGAIN) "it must have been the cop because that was the only car that parked behind me and that mark was not there to begin with."
And you don't think it's hypocritical to "point out the errors of your not-helpful-to-the-OP rant" by posting a not-helpful-to-the-OP rant? Twice?
I guess me defending a fellow member from an unwarranted attack is a shameful thing. So shameful, in fact, that you have decided to make it your mission to attack me (and the OP for not being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer caused the damage). Good strategy.
As I said, I'll let it go. Feel free to leave as many long-winded hypocritical posts as you like. You continue to prove that you think you are smarter than the rest of us (and morally better). It's working! As a laugh, I decided to check your history of posts and *surprise* this isn't the first time you've chosen to pretend to be the master of all the knowledge in the universe, complete with the attitude and delusional self-image. Again, good for you. Way to chastise me (while ignoring the post that motivated me in the first place, the one where a member decided to call another member an 'ignorant douche' - you must agree with that behavior). I guess I'm the problem and the guy who called another member names did just fine by you.
If I tell you that you've won, will you kindly go away?

 

[Markus]

Thanks again, Markus, for proving how smart you are.
Especially for these diametrically opposed statements that show that your only intention is to stir things up:
"What happened until innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?? Does that not apply to cops?"
then
"That's right, it's not a court a court of law."

Talk about taking different responses, putting them together, and then taking them out of context in order to try to make a point.

To answer your question (since I am a law student and law clerk), generally speaking, innocent until proven guilty applies only to criminal charges (none of which were alleged). It applies to officers too (when they are accused of a crime). However, as I've stated (and you've reiterated), this ISN'T A COURT OF LAW! Since it isn't a court of law, there is no requirement of guilt or innocence, nor is there any requirement of proof.

I would have thought a law student would have wanted to get at the truth, rather than just what a fellow forum member THINKS MIGHT have happened. :dunno:

Especially when the OP wasn't asking how to get the cops to pay for the damage.
I guess I needed to prove that to you to satiate your anger. So be it.

But it's your anger that I responded to.

04PinoyAccord made an inappropriate post and you responded in kind, with just as much anger and venom.

Again, my post (and I'd appreciate it if you would simply accept this rather than try to 'win' - you can't) was intended to do one thing: correct what I considered bad behavior. Why did I think it was bad behavior? Because that post was a direct attack on the OP (in that the post called the OP an "ignorant douche").

And instead of simply pointing out that 04PinoyAccord's post was an inappropriate attack you attacked him back in a most unsubtle manner, calling him many many different names. Not what I'd expect of somebody trying to get into the law profession. If all you wanted to do was "correct" behavior then you wouldn't have gone off on such a long rant and called 04PinoyAccord a myriad of names, and you know it. If calling people names in so abhorrent to you then why subject someone else to it? You make no sense.

What IS hilarious is that you keep arguing with me by doing precisely what you are chastising me for doing. I know you don't get it, but it is hilarious.

Yes, your replies are indeed hilarious, and very telling ...

How would you feel if the OP had accused you or one of your family members of damaging his car under the same circumstances? Would it be OK to do so without proof? Would you, as a law student, just take his word for it because he's a DA member? I would hope not! No sensible person would.

04PinoyAccordwas wrong to use the term "ignorant douches". You were just as wrong to use "genius",
Me: Don't call posters "ignorant douches" when you don't know what happened. You: How dare you tell someone not to call other posters "ignorant douches" when the OP can't prove that the cop caused the damage! Only I get to correct behavior that I deem inappropriate!
Great argument. You should be allowed to skip law school and be admitted to the Bar right away.
So, because you are too wise and smart to realize just how silly you are being, I won't post again about this. If you wish to continue to berate someone for calling someone out for using ad hominem attack, perhaps you would be better served by PM-ing them instead.
For the record, I especially enjoyed you proving how great you are by calling my reading comprehension into question. You ARE defending the 'cop' by saying that the OP has NO PROOF that the cop caused the damage. Of course, the OP stated that he believed the cop did the damage because (and I'll quote him - AGAIN) "it must have been the cop because that was the only car that parked behind me and that mark was not there to begin with."
And you don't think it's hypocritical to "point out the errors of your not-helpful-to-the-OP rant" by posting a not-helpful-to-the-OP rant? Twice?
I guess me defending a fellow member from an unwarranted attack is a shameful thing. So shameful, in fact, that you have decided to make it your mission to attack me (and the OP for not being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer caused the damage). Good strategy.
As I said, I'll let it go. Feel free to leave as many long-winded hypocritical posts as you like. You continue to prove that you think you are smarter than the rest of us (and morally better). It's working! As a laugh, I decided to check your history of posts and *surprise* this isn't the first time you've chosen to pretend to be the master of all the knowledge in the universe, complete with the attitude and delusional self-image. Again, good for you. Way to chastise me (while ignoring the post that motivated me in the first place, the one where a member decided to call another member an 'ignorant douche' - you must agree with that behavior). I guess I'm the problem and the guy who called another member names did just fine by you.
If I tell you that you've won, will you kindly go away?

There's a difference between defending the cop and pointing out that the OP has no evidence against the cop. You of all people should know that, almost-a-counselor. But let's not let that get in the way of yet another attack by you, eh? Just so we're clear (and please re-read my posts and you'll see that what I say is true), I'm defending no one. Just because I'm taking you to task for name calling doesn't mean I condone what 04PinoyAccord wrote. And, in fact, nowhere have I condoned what he wrote. I don't know why a law student can't comprehend this - my 11 year old daughter most certainly does comprehend it :dunno:

Look, you're the one who called me out for not helping the OP get his car fixed. And I have yet to see any of your posts helping him do that. You complain about ad-hominem attacks after you attacked 04PinoyAccord by calling him a myriad of names. And then you call me hypocritical? Do you see the problem here?

I don't know what you think I've won :dunno: What I have done is point out how hypocritical your attacks and subsequent rants have been and continue to be. Sorry if you can't see that.

 

[anthony0488]

The OP don't know if it was the cop who did that, but since that was the car park behind him, he have all the right 2 think it was the cop, to the op go to the station and explain what happend, the paint from you car should be on the cap car if it was him.
I was hit by a cop once while he when thrue a red light without any sirens or light on and he say to me that he sorry and admit that he never turn on the light or sirens and when I went to get the report, his supervisor make some changes on the cop story and add that in fact he did turn the light and sirens on and that he took the necessary precaution to got thrue the light, but since he hit me on my rear door, insurance company give me 100% on the claim. So yeat some of them lied to cover, they take avantage of been a cop, while a few of them do what they're pay to do, keep us safe.

 

[Markus]

The OP don't know if it was the cop who did that, but since that was the car park behind him, he have all the right 2 think it was the cop, to the op go to the station and explain what happend, the paint from you car should be on the cap car if it was him.
I was hit by a cop once while he when thrue a red light without any sirens or light on and he say to me that he sorry and admit that he never turn on the light or sirens and when I went to get the report, his supervisor make some changes on the cop story and add that in fact he did turn the light and sirens on and that he took the necessary precaution to got thrue the light, but since he hit me on my rear door, insurance company give me 100% on the claim. So yeat some of them lied to cover, they take avantage of been a cop, while a few of them do what they're pay to do, keep us safe.

Of course the OP has the right to think it was the cop who damaged his car. Nobody is saying otherwise. That doesn't mean the cop actually did it, though. Unless the OP has more evidence that what he originally posted, that is.

 

[Aviography]

This thread is going nowhere fast.

Closed.