X2

The rest of the story.
http://somers.dailyvoice.com/news/supervisor-somers-police-justified-pro-gun-sign-removal

Quote:

The initial controversy stemmed from whether or not Gibson’s sign was on his own private property or town property. Somers police and the town’s highway department have officially determined it was indeed on town property, and therefore, not in violation of the Town of Somers code 170-125, which restricts the use of signs on public property. Under this code, the town is not required to officially cite a resident before taking action.

Rest of the story? You're funny. And a little bit lazy. All of the info you just posted has already been included in the multiple stories I linked to. Perhaps if you actually read the posts and links, you wouldn't be posting stuff that was already posted and addressed a week ago.

That's real adult of you, how old are you 12?

Are you kidding me? I have read your posts including blatantly false statements, emotional hyperbole, and, of course, underhanded comments questioning my intelligence, maturity, and value to society. I have seen DC post pictures implying people are "tin-foil hate wearers" and conspiracy theorists. Sometimes, y'all's posts are in reply to intelligent argument supported by facts and reason. That would be the definition of arguing like a child.

As for this particular post, DC decided to post the town's public response, which has been well documented in the links I provided. DC did not post intelligent argument regarding the content of the links, but instead regurgitated information that has already been addressed.

If one wanted to engage in respectful, intelligent conversation about the legality of a town picking and choosing which citizens it applies local laws to based upon the political views of the individual citizens by taking a view opposing mine, then sweet.

For example, one could say:

"I understand that the city building inspector approved of the sign location, but since it was not done in writing, I believe that the city was justified in removing a citizen's sign from their front lawn 4 times without notice. I also understand that there are documented pictures of numerous other local political and commercial signs in violation of the cited sign code, but still believe the city was justified. I know that the town's response to those other signs is that they do the best they can to remove all signs, but many get overlooked, and this guy's sign was never overlooked, to the point it was removed 4 separate times while other signs remained posted, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the sign... And I still believe the city was justified.

I also understand that the land survey has not yet been completed, and that even if the sign was in the right if way, the property is still technically the owner's as he maintains and pays taxes on said property, the sign was not a permanent structure, and the town code itself will be challenged as unconstitutional in that it possibly infringes on this citizens 1st amendment rights, but I still believe the city is justified."

If someone posted that, we could discuss our views, even though they are complete polar opposites.

But if you post a link to a week-old news story which is simply a regurgitation of a portion of a link I already posted, and present it as factual support for your opposing view, I'm gonna call you out for it.

You call me names and insult my intelligence by asking me if I'm 12. I'm not the one calling people names or blindly arguing with someone without even bothering to read what I am arguing about.

How about this for the "rest of the story":

http://www.lohud.com/article/20130930/OPINION/309300072/Take-NY-gun-law-complaint-Albany

"Maybe he should visit the town cemetery and explain to the Newtown school administrator buried there what his feelings are."

That is from a letter written by a member of the Somers Planning Board (whatever that is) in regards to the sign in question. This isn't definitive proof of town bias against gun rights, but it certainly brings into question the reason the pro gun sign was removed. Are y'all sure the signs message had nothing to do with the removal?

my, my, my......a little emotional today aren't we? I don't have the time nor patience to read all the links you throw up in your tirades against local governments.....

I clearly saw the sign attack the officer, again just saying.......

Are they tirades against local governments?

Or cop bashing? Or trolling? Am I unintelligent? Inexperienced? Immature? You've accused me of all, yet never take the time to actually understand what I am saying.

Rather than discuss facts presented, you have a habit of taking an opposing position and trying to steamroll me with uninformed emotional responses. (Remember telling me cops should be allowed to arrest open carriers on trumped up charges in case they are serial killers? Still waiting for you to list just one open carry serial killer. Lol)

Then you resort to name calling and baseless accusations.

Emotional? Sho nuff.

Well, the sign was openly displaying a rifle, so maybe he was arresting it for disorderly conduct/resisting arrest/etc.

Lies will get you nowhere, I never said anything about arresting on trumped up charges and you know it......sorry I even communicate and try to have a little entertainment, you are way too high strung and serious for me, and probably for a forum.

Pot, meet kettle.

Of course you didn't say that. You just called me cop hater for hating cops that abuse their powers. So I in turn called you a supporter of abusive cops based upon you opposing my opposition to abusive cops. Crystal clear? Or a bunch of BS? Or is it ok when you do it, but BS when I do? I think it's BS all the way around.

I am also entertained, thank you very much! I thoroughly enjoy discussion and intelligent argument. When it degrades into me being insulted, I also enjoy throwing a lil back at you. But I'm sorry that you feel I'm too high strung and serious for you and the forum, and that you're no longer entertained.

Did you hear the one about the rest of the story?

How does someone as angry as you have an intelligent argument? I didn't defend any abusive police officer, in fact I said I would be the first to ask for their job, I simply asked you to give them a fair shake until all the facts are known.

From the outside looking in, I think he has had great points and counters.

You said yourself that you don't care to read the provided links, so how can you say that you want to wait till the facts are known when you don't care to read about the issue?

That is because you back his every play, don't buddy up with another member and then try and justify his garbage saying that you agree, that's like your momma taking up for you......you kids need to grow up and get some real life experience, then we can talk.

Unlike you internet rangers, I don't base my opinion on newspaper article or Youtube.......why not get the true story? You certainly won't get the real story from the media.

two kids in the schoolyard agreeing, great......means tons to me.......

I guess that makes you ntxtrapper butt buddies huh, sorry if we both see the issue the same way, I tried to give you an honest opinion, but you can't even see it, that's fine IDGAF either way, and please explain to me how YOU are going to get the "true" facts, you must have some connections, please inform me chief.

Oh yes, you are way too mature, get the sand out of your vag and play ball, or go home.

You have yet to post any useful information on this post, please get your facts and let me see them, hell I might even change my mind, but it seems that you don't have any.

How does someone as obtuse as yourself have the ability to make an objective observation of my emotional state?

When have you been witness to me not giving an officer a fair shake? If you link me to my statement that was unfairly biased against a police officer, I will address and apologize for it. I try not to jump to conclusions without knowing facts.

You most definitely did defend/support officers charging open carriers with disorderly conduct/resisting arrest/BS charges. When you post things like "mess with the bull, you get the horns" or "play stupid games, get stupid prizes", and/or insult the arrestee, all while never stating that an officer making up BS charges to arrest someone is absolutely wrong, and also explaining that what the officer is doing is absolutely within the limits of his power, and that cops just enforce the law, that person will go before a judge/jury, blah blah blah... That is all supporting/defending officers abusing their powers.

Maybe we should make our definitions clear:
When an officer uses his powers to arrest someone for a BS charge, including, but not limited to disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, etc. because the person was open carrying and decided to be a complete prick to the cop, I consider that abuse. Do you?

It doesn't mean I don't feel for the cop, or that I like that the douchebag is being an ahole to the cop, or that I hate cops... It means I expect the police to have a little more self control than to let some ahole push them to abusing their power as a police officer. And if they can't handle some douchebag with a rifle acting like a douchebag, then they shouldn't be allowed to be an officer with arresting powers.

At least ntxtrapper is straight up. He pretty much posts that police should be able to punish douchebags for being douchebags and has no problem saying so. Which kinda makes me find of him. I can respect a guy that gives not an eff what anyone thinks.

I don't know that dude, and have no clue what play you speak of backing. I stand completely on my own.

On top of that, read his statement. What about that upsets you so much? This little tirade began when you jumped in defending DC, not by making an intelligent statement, but by calling me names. Am I taking crazy pills or are you just messing with me? Every accusation you make applies directly to you, and is included in the thread. So confused.

There are professionals that can help you with that.......