Felony Arrest Of Student Who Bought Water Riles Many

[bannination]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... n-virginia


Water; dangerous stuff.

[Ombudsman]

So she was arrested for hitting a police officer with a car, not buying water, right?

[bannination]

So she was arrested for hitting a police officer with a car, not buying water, right?

Correct, but just like everything else, context matters.

[Ombudsman]

For both sides.

[Ombudsman]

Ombudsman is defending something even a DA won't despite 2 cops being struck.

Is English your second language or is there another reason you have so much difficulty comprehending it? I defended accuracy. I'm not surprised that offends you.

[Ombudsman]

What "accuracy"? No one said she was a "arrested for...buying water". You just pulled that out of your ass and not even the DA sees the "both sides" that you do.

Read the headline dumb ass. If she wasn't arrested "for" buying water, why is it relevant to mention she bought water in the headline? People like you are so caught up in sensationalistic headlines, bumper sticker slogans, and whatever else works on a short attention span that you don't seem capable of looking at the facts of the situation.

[Guest]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... n-virginia
Water; dangerous stuff.

Plainclothes cops; more dangerous stuff.

[Ombudsman]

Read the stories dumbass. The initiating "criminal" event was the purchase of water for a charity event to benefit the Alzheimer's Association.

No sweetie, focus. She was arrested and charged with a felony for eluding the police not for buying water. She was approached by law enforcement when they thought the water was beer. If she had simply shown them it was water, she would not have been arrested. Try to look past the sensationalism every now and then so you understand what's really going on.

Like Trayvon Martin, those girls were where they should be and doing nothing wrong. Even still, no person, neither article and neither headline said they were "arrested for...buying water". As usual, you got confused and pretentiously took it upon yourself to correct something that needed no correcting while claiming that there are two sides that even a DA can't see.

As usual you're too stupid to even know what the incident was about. Yet you chose to mouth off anyway. Backpedal some more. Should be interesting.

[Mr.B]

Good gosh, golly, darn, gee whiz! The first headlines stated she was arrested for buying water.

The article went on to say that the plainsclothes cops jumped on the hood of her car.
Not knowing who they were, she panicked and drove away brushing one of the cops with her car.

The cops, obviously pissed off at their own stupidity and unprofessionalism, tried to save face by charging her with assault on an officer.

In reality, the writer of the sensational story used a headline to draw attention to the article; he's the dumbass.

[Ombudsman]

Read the stories dumbass. The initiating "criminal" event was the purchase of water for a charity event to benefit the Alzheimer's Association.

No sweetie, focus.

Opps, Ombudsman didn't notice that "criminal" was in quotes.

She was arrested and charged with a felony for eluding the police

Duh, the point that you're too thick to get despite everyone else's posts, the articles and the headlines is that the precipitating "crime", the one without which none of the rest would have occurred, is the purchase of water that looked like beer to idiot cops.

not for buying water.

No one said she was a "arrested for...buying water". You're arguing with your own delusions and have been all along.

She was approached by law enforcement when they thought the water was beer. If she had simply shown them it was water, she would not have been arrested. Try to look past the sensationalism every now and then so you understand what's really going on.

I love how you make things up when you're floundering. There's no indication in either of the articles that the cops told her, or that she understood, why they approached her until well after the event when a uniformed cop clued her in. In fact, that she didn't know they were plainclothes cops is the whole point, the whole point!

It's pitiful that you invent lies when you've screwed-up, even more so that you still foolishly think you can get away with it with me.

Like Trayvon Martin, those girls were where they should be and doing nothing wrong. Even still, no person, neither article and neither headline said they were "arrested for...buying water". As usual, you got confused and pretentiously took it upon yourself to correct something that needed no correcting while claiming that there are two sides that even a DA can't see.

As usual you're too stupid to even know what the incident was about. Yet you chose to mouth off anyway. Backpedal some more. Should be interesting.

Skittles-iced tea, authority stupidly thinking wrongdoing was occurring and taking extreme action, confrontation with injury resulting. "water, cookie dough and ice cream", authority stupidly thinking wrongdoing was occurring and taking extreme action, confrontation with injury resulting.

As usual, you're too stupid to even know what the incident was about and see the obvious similarities. Yet, you chose to mouth off anyway. Invent scenarios - "If she had simply shown them it was water" - some more. Should be interesting, and pathetic.

Yeah Sweetie let's pretend this is about Skittles and it's just like the Trayvon Martin incidednt. You're cute.

[Ombudsman]

God what a cutie. Too bad she can't think for herself though.

[Ombudsman]

What happens when Ombudsman "thinks" for himself:

Opps, Ombudsman didn't notice that "criminal" was in quotes.

No one said she was a "arrested for...buying water". You're arguing with your own delusions and have been all along.

Damn, you're just kinda stupid huh?

[Ombudsman]

Cuter in shit. One wonders why you're alone.

[Stinger]

The thread title at the top of every single post implies someone was arrested for buying water.

What's the other meaning of "Felony Arrest of Student Who Bought Water..."?

What would "Felony Arrest of Student Who Bought Pot..." imply?

[Ombudsman]

I think part of the reason poor Vrede spends so much time chasing her tail is she isn't familiar with any topic until it's posted here. The story throughout the blogosphere has consistently mentioned that she was arrested "after buying bottled water" as if the water was relevant to the arrest. The Huffington Post was the one who sensationalized to begin with: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/2 ... 18340.html

If she wasn't arrested for buying water, then it's a non-story and Banni's statement, "water, dangerous stuff" makes no sense. Poor Vrede is so desperate to kiss Banni's ass she'll jump through hoops like a trained Chihuahua though.

Last night several friends, my wife and I were a walking down the sidewalk a couple blocks from our house to watch the fireworks and a police officer told us to dump our solo cups if they had beer in them. So we did. I suppose I could have ignored him, been arrested and the headline would be "Man is arrested while quietly watching fireworks with friends and family." Wingnuts and Vrede would see no problem with that headline since it didn't actually say I was arrested for watching fireworks. Inherently dishonest people see no problem in lies through implication which is why Fox News, Newsmax, HuffPo, and Woldnet Daily are so popular amongst them.

[Mr.B]

The liberals are at each other's throats!!!

[Ombudsman]

The liberals are at each other's throats!!!

Another dualist.

[bannination]

The liberals are at each other's throats!!!

That's a sign of a healthy debate and non-group-think. There's nothing wrong with arguing with someone in your own political camp, that is, if you consider them liberals anyway.

That said, I haven't kept up with the giant walls of text.

[Ombudsman]

That said, I haven't kept up with the giant walls of text.

According to Vrede that makes you a wus who is running away.

[Mr.B]

"That's a sign of a healthy debate and non-group-think. There's nothing wrong with arguing with someone in your own political camp, that is, if you consider them liberals anyway."

Right...! Uh-huh..! OK......gooooood healthhhhhy debate...got it.