May I pit those badge kissers who doubted my story about my friend's wife's death?

A lot of badge kissers in here decided I was totally full of shit about the Burbank California Policein this old thread. In light of new evidence, can I get some love here?

cite

cite

cite

cite

citel

But no, I was just a big fucking liar and the Burbank PD are shining examples of law enforcement. They had no personal axe to grind when my friend killed herself and they tried to pin it on my buddy and business partner to this day.

I wasn’t in the original thread, but now that I’ve read it, no.

What people thought you were full of shit about was your story about how the Burbank cops treated your friend after his wife’s suicide, and they had some doubts about whether your friend and his wife even existed.

You’ve pulled up a bunch of cites, but none of them seem to corroborate your story, or even have anything to do with it.

Well why would he make it up?

Far more sensible to believe him unless there are genuine inconsistencies or implausibilities in his stories, which I’ve seen none of.

Perhaps you could quote:

(a) something you said in the first thread;
(b) The quote from someone in that thread calling or insinuating that (a) was a lie;
and
(c) the quote from your new evidence that proves it to be so?

For example, in these totally made up quotes, it might look like:

In that thread, I said:
And then, the cops arrested me and beat with with a garden hose.

And then Poster X replied:
Come on! I find it highly unlikely that the cops would use a garden hose.

And now the newspaper says:
Video uncovered by a Freedom of Information Act request shows the two police officers repeatedly strike the man with what appears to be a garden hose.

Thanks in advance!

I’m not saying he made it up. But he claims to be posting to refute what was said in the earlier thread; I was simply saying that I don’t see any evidence that people’s doubts expressed in that thread were wrong.

And what Bricker said.

I think it’s a meta claim

What RTFirefly says - what do your cites have to do with your friend’s suicide, and how is questioning the husband of a dead woman an attempt at a frame-up?

My sympathies to you (very belatedly) on your friend’s suicide, as well to the family of the cop who also committed suicide.

Regards,
Shodan

Most of the criticism in that thread wasn’t about the police story as much as it was about your reports of your involvement in it. As none of these cites appear to back up any involvement by you I think its safe to assume that your level of bullshit hasn’t subsided.

The good news is that this new thread will bring you your next fix of attention which you so desperately crave.

Nope. You’re still a fucking idiot.

To answer the OP’s question: Yes, you may pit those badge kissers who doubted your story about your friend’s wife’s death.

Whether anyone here will support you in that pitting, or agree that you accurately reported the facts, or will think that you have been unjustly accused of acting like an ass, is another question entirely.

It’s Stan. He is a dickweasel.

He won’t be back, unless it’s to claim how lame we are for not seeing that the fact that the Burbank PD is being investigated for some general wrongdoing PROVES that he intimidated the cops into backing down off his buddy. Or that he’s smarter than them. Or smarter than us.

And he’s been here 5 years! He has benefits!

Yes, it’s not that people here are unanimously supportive of anonymous police officers, who may or may not actually exist, or may or may not have been asses. It’s just that we are almost unanimous in our opinion that you’re a dickhead.

I understand why you would be angry about this. I’m sorry for your (and your friend’s) loss.

Though there are many diverse factors (e.g., time on the board, outlandishness of the claim, writing style), I’ve found the board’s cynicism and reluctance to extend the benefit of the doubt to a Pit thread strongly correlated to the overall obnoxiousness of the pitting poster.

I’m not reading any of that until Stan goes back into the benefits thread.

Stan, I have no reason to believe you made up the original story. And I have no doubt that he Burbank PD has some housecleaning to do.

None of that changes the fact that questioning the husband of a homicide–even aggressively–is absolutely the duty of a cop who’s investigating the death. The husband should appreciate that eliminating him as a suspect is necessary to move the investigation forward, and any obstacles he throws up are a disservice to his wife.

So your overall premise is flawed, and your presentation–which you used as an opportunity to also tell us by the way how big your dick --flawed as well.

That’s the reaction you’re having to live with. Instead of flailing against it, you’d be doing yourself a favor to try to learn something from it.

Fact is, any time a young woman ends up dead, the very first person the cops wanna talk to is the boyfriend, or the husband, or both if she has both. Don’t you watch Law and Order? That said, the cops shouldn’t act like jerks to the boyfriend–just because the boyfriend is the prime suspect doesn’t mean he’s surely the perpetrator.

Not to mention his absolutely moronic ignorance of forensics and crime scenes.

Dude, you deserved the ass drumming you got in that thread.
Oh, and I see your corrupt cops and I raise you one Richard Poplawski.

You’re a forensic scientist now are you?