Yet the politicians and the cretins that habituate that open cess pool known as NYC presume to lecture the rest of America on how to live.

… lawmakers were forced to pass a bill …

… forced … FORCED … ?

Lawmakers can be FORCED to pass a bill?

Hey, Deckard, tell everyone how this FORCING works?

If this can happen and did happen as this TFTP article so boldly and emphatically states it did,
then this heretofore unknown political shenanigan is a political mechanism Trump can use.

Wow …

Yeah - I guess the public outrage by disgusted citizens was enough to persuade New York lawmakers to put an end to this reprehensible "tactic".

Apparently even in New York, some politicians do have a basic understanding of right and wrong.

Of course there are some here at LF who believe cops need to have free-reign to do whatever they want without any repercussions.

That your only comment is one that makes light of a teen who was handcuffed and raped by cops, I would put you in that category.

Yeah - I guess the public outrage by disgusted citizens was enough to persuade New York lawmakers to put an end to this reprehensible "tactic".

Ahem …

You “guess” eh?

This will undoubtedly will come as a severe shock to you to learn that while a “guess” happens far too often in a “libertarian’s world” - hard-core “facts” are most important in the “real world.”

Please, Deckard, at some time in your life – learn it live in the real world and deal in facts and not guesses.

Your turn now ...

The cops sure didn't want this new law.

Apparently neither do you.

The cops sure didn't want this new law.

… “sure” …

How do you know this?

Apparently neither do you.

I never stated that or in any way indicated that “I did not want this new law.”

What did I state?

I will repeat my post and if you still do not understand it – then you may ask hondope to help you.

TFTP:

… lawmakers were forced to pass a bill …

Gatlin:

… forced … FORCED … ?

Lawmakers can be FORCED to pass a bill?

Hey, Deckard, tell everyone how this FORCING works?

If this can happen and did happen as this TFTP article so boldly and emphatically states it did,
then this heretofore unknown political shenanigan is a political mechanism Trump can use.

Wow …

"A learning disability in reading comprehension affects the learner's ability to understand the meaning of words and passages."

You really need to work on your problem.

Your turn now ...

"... and kept only the tiny teen girl.

Here's the "tiny teen girl":

She's 18. She wasn't kidnapped -- she was arrested for possessing marijuana, prozac pills and klonopin. She offered to exchange sex for dropping the charges.

Nothing was illegal.

Your turn now ...

Since you are busy and cannot respond to my post, I will therefore continue and you can catch up later.

Moving along …

The article mentions a charge of:

… bribery …

… BRIBERY … ?

Bribery is defined as “the crime of giving someone money or something else of value, often illegally, to persuade that person to do something you want.”

So, Deckard, if these cops gave Anna “money or something else of value, often NOT illegal, to persuade her to do something that wanted” and if she did it – then pray tell how could that have been considered “rape” in the first place?

“Official Misconduct” – Yes.
“Rape” – No way.

Please learn some day to stop posting this TFTP yellow journalism shit.

Since they uncuffed her and let her go before arriving at the police station,
one can easily surmise that she may have decided to give each of them a
“free one” to let her go….and they did.

she may have decided to give each of them a “free one” to let her go

A perk of the job. Given that it involved consenting adults, I'm surprised anyone on this forum would object.

Did you appreciate the Crocodile Dundee clip I added as a visual aid?

But this week, they had all those charges dropped.

Of course all those charges were dropped.

Because the system is set up in a way to protect predator police officers.

Now that is pure Matt Agorist and TFTP flowery yellow-journalism BULLSHIT. This “because” statement is hogwash used to shroud and hide in darkness the “real” reason the DA dropped all charges. Matt Agorist is hiding the obvious reason here that he definitely had access to. Which was that the DA dropped the charges for “insufficient evidence” because all the DA had was a case of “she said.”

But this week, they had all those charges dropped. Because the system is set up in a way to protect predator police officers.

Nope, it key among the reasons the prosecution cited for asking to be replaced is Chambers’s credibility as a witness. In its letter to the judge, the district attorney’s office claimed that Chambers, who was 18 at the time of the rape, made “a series of false, misleading, and inconsistent statements about the facts of this case and about collateral or unrelated matters.” The letter continued, “Most troubling, she made some false statements under oath.” The prosecutors cite Chambers’s “hostility” to their office and note that due to her “false, misleading and inconsistent statements … legal requirements prohibit us from calling her to testify under oath.”

The cops sure didn't want this new law.

You don’t know that.

But an intelligent person knows there’s a definite risk in thinking that a legislative reform such as the passage of S7708 will deliver justice to future survivors of police sexual assault. A risk that occurs in the broader mistake of conflating law with justice. It is entirely possible It’s feasible that had the law already been on the books at the time of Chambers’ alleged rape, then her alleged assaulters would never have admitted to sex on duty as a defense. They could just as easily claimed that the sex occurred off-duty and yet again a grimy he-said-she-said of so many sexual assaults would have ensued.

So what there is here, Deckard - is just another worthless law. Something I understood you to be definitely against in you crusade against government.

You are some complex and mixed up individual completely incapable of thinking clearly and properly rationalizing.

she was arrested for possessing marijuana, prozac pills and klonopin. She offered to exchange sex for dropping the charges.

Nothing was illegal.

So prostitution and bribery is legal in New York?

I didn't know that.

misterwhite:

… She offered to exchange sex for dropping the charges.

Nothing was illegal.

Pinguinite:

So prostitution and bribery is legal in New York?

Prostitution and bribery is not legal in New York.

New York has laws against both buying and selling sex. In New York, a person commits the crime of prostitution by engaging in (or offering or agreeing to engage in) any sex act in return for a fee. [Repeat: For a “FEE”]. New York’s prostitution law applies only to people who “sell sex.” [Repeat: Sell sex”]. People who buy sex can be convicted of patronizing.

She was not “selling sex” for a “fee” and “bartering” is not “bribery.” The police officers were not “buying” sex so they were not “patronizing.”

There was no prostitution or bribery and what she did was legal in New York.

She was doing “sexual bartering” — Defined as: “When one person agrees to do a sexual act in exchange for something they want.”

Pinguinite:

I didn't know that.

And you now know that it is as misterwhite stated: “Nothing was illegal.”

Footnote: If you ever want to have sex in New York and not be entrapped into committing an unlawful act – Then do “Sexual bartering.” She gives you sex and you give her a $100 Walmart gift card. Smart, Eh? I thought so.

Disclaimer: This post was presented for informational purposes only and there is to be np response.

Of course there are some here at LF who believe cops need to have free-reign to do whatever they want without any repercussions.

That your only comment is one that makes light of a teen who was handcuffed and raped by cops, I would put you in that category.

I find when there is insufficient supporting evidence to support an accusation, I descried it as "unsubstantiated."

You have made an “unsubstantiated” statement – A “false allegation.”

I fully realize that a false allegation can occur as the result of intentional lying on the part of the accuser; or unintentionally, due to a confabulation arising spontaneously due to mental illness.

I am really not in a position to decide which of these apply to you. But if I were pressed, I would probably go with the latter.

The hypocrisy that you and mw exhibit on this thread exceeds even liberal demos attitude toward Trump. It is really disturbing to see.

You happily rubber stamp the death of any one who is merely accused of criminal acts ... so long as they don't wear a blue uniform. Add blue uniform, and presto... they can do no wrong whatsoever.

So now you are on the mw's bandwagon suggesting that cops can rightly be paid sexual favors in exchange for not arresting and filing charges against women when they have a good-faith belief / probable cause that they committed crimes and that it is legally and, no doubt, morally justifiable for them to do this.

What planet are you from again???

And of course, I'm not even conceding that what the cops did was ONLY what mw claims. I was just responding to mw in the terms he advocated took place. This woman, if the above is an actual photo of her, is certainly a hot woman. I guess to you that automatically makes her forfeit any rights as to what men do to her body. Excuse me... I guess not just any men, but male cops. Or why not female cops too? THEY can do whatever the hell they want with any sexy woman and it's okay, including while the woman is handcuffed. Because they are cops.

It's truly types like you that completely lack any and all integrity whatsoever when you rubber stamp criminal and highly immoral activity just because the perps wear blue uniforms.

Whatever your criticism is of Deckard for hating cops, criticism which I think is excessive, you go much farther in the other direction LOVING them. Of course, "cop" meaning "any person who wears a blue law enforcement uniform". It could be an ISIS member or Hillary Clinton and you'd still offer blind defense to the contents of the blue cloth.

It's the reason I have you on bozo, but I only saw your post because I was logged out. You are plainly and irrevocably stupid.

That was one of the most bizarre weirdo posts I've ever seen.

This woman, if the above is an actual photo of her, is certainly a hot woman. I guess to you that automatically makes her forfeit any rights as to what men do to her body.

The photo was to counter the claim that she was some innocent, little, "teenage" girl.

Get off the "pound me too" bandwagon and admit that women DO use sex to get what they want.

Did you appreciate the Crocodile Dundee clip I added as a visual aid?

A blast from the past.

That was one of the most bizarre weirdo posts I've ever seen.

But where was it wrong?

TELL ME, PLEASE.

The photo was to counter the claim that she was some innocent, little, "teenage" girl.

Get off the "pound me too" bandwagon and admit that women DO use sex to get what they want.

....AND....???

Should these cops be on the police force????

Should these cops be on the police force????

You're doing 60 in a 40 and get pulled over. You broke the law. You know you broke the law. You give the cop a sob story and he lets you off with a warning.

Should that cop be on the police force????

You're doing 60 in a 40 and get pulled over. You broke the law. You know you broke the law. You give the cop a sob story and he lets you off with a warning.

Should that cop be on the police force????

Well, that is a very good point.

So.... handcuffing and raping a woman accused of a crime is perfectly acceptable behavior on the part of a uniformed cop.

Thanks for chiming in with your most excellent rebuttal.

The hypocrisy that you and mw exhibit on this thread exceeds even liberal demos attitude toward Trump. It is really disturbing to see.

You are once again grossly mistaken. There was definitely no hypocrisy since there was no claim to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform. I can understand why truth is disturbing to you, but it is something you must try and learn to accept and live with.

You happily rubber stamp the death of any one who is merely accused of criminal acts ... so long as they don't wear a blue uniform. Add blue uniform, and presto... they can do no wrong whatsoever.

Such an instance of exaggerating a whopper and a gross overstatement is worthy of causing shame and disgrace. With your outlook and mentality, I can truly expect you to now progress to pervasive misuse of violent and self-deprecating expressions. The “happily” thing I do is kick libertarian ass on this forum and I show no mercy in my undertaking.

So now you are on the mw's bandwagon suggesting that cops can rightly be paid sexual favors in exchange for not arresting and filing charges against women when they have a good-faith belief / probable cause that they committed crimes and that it is legally and, no doubt, morally justifiable for them to do this.

I am on nobody’s bandwagon and in no way do I suggest any such thing. What I did was to factually answer your “tongue-in-cheek” question by presenting facts and I will happily repeat the facts here for everyone to see.

Pinguinite:

So prostitution and bribery is legal in New York?

Gatlin:

Prostitution and bribery is not legal in New York.

New York has laws against both buying and selling sex. In New York, a person commits the crime of prostitution by engaging in (or offering or agreeing to engage in) any sex act in return for a fee. [Repeat: For a “FEE”]. New York’s prostitution law applies only to people who “sell sex.” [Repeat: Sell sex”]. People who buy sex can be convicted of patronizing.

She was not “selling sex” for a “fee” and “bartering” is not “bribery.” The police officers were not “buying” sex so they were not “patronizing.”

There was no prostitution or bribery and what she did was legal in New York.

She was doing “sexual bartering” — Defined as: “When one person agrees to do a sexual act in exchange for something they want.”

And you now know that it is as misterwhite stated: “Nothing was illegal.”

Footnote: If you ever want to have sex in New York and not be entrapped into committing an unlawful act – Then do “Sexual bartering.” She gives you sex and you give her a $100 Walmart gift card. Smart, Eh? I thought so.

Continuing on …

What planet are you from again???

Ah, when all else is failing then revert to sarcasm.

The word sarcasm is derived from the Greek word “sarkazein” which literally means “to tear or strip the flesh off.” It has been shown that the use of sarcasm is a subtle form of bullying and most bullies are angry, insecure, cowards.

Alternatively, it is when a person stops voicing negative comments, especially sarcastic and critical ones, that person soon starts to feel happier and more self-confident. So, are you now feeling happier and gained some needed self- confidence?

Let us hope so …

And of course, I'm not even conceding that what the cops did was ONLY what mw claims.

Your statement makes no sense or I missed something. I see nowhere that misterwhite “claimed” anything.

I only see a statement of fact when misterwhite posted that “nothing was illegal” when “she offered to exchange sex for dropping the charges.” And I proceeded to show you that under NY law tht misterwhite was correct in his assessment.

I was just responding to mw in the terms he advocated took place.

I have no idea what you were trying to do. I only know that you definitely made a ass of yourself.

This woman, if the above is an actual photo of her, is certainly a hot woman.

Sexist.

I guess to you that automatically makes her forfeit any rights as to what men do to her body. Excuse me... I guess not just any men, but male cops ...

You sure do lots of “guessing” for someone who passes himself of as an educated person.

Pinguinite, you misguided child, you need to not “guess” – you need learn to “mean” after you know facts.

THEY can do whatever the hell they want with any sexy woman and it's okay, including while the woman is handcuffed. Because they are cops.

That’s pure bullshit. I will not take time to reply to such a ridiculous statement you perhaps captured from a TFTP yellow journalism article.

It's truly types like you that completely lack any and all integrity whatsoever when you rubber stamp criminal and highly immoral activity just because the perps wear blue uniforms.

You keep coming back to this irrational conclusion. I rubber stamped no criminal and highly immoral activity. I merely documented and validated misterwhite’s already true statement. Furthermore, I will never pass judgment or arrive at any conclusion on information I took from a yellow journalism article. And a hex on you for you shamefully doing just that.

You are plainly and irrevocably stupid.

That coming from a kooky libertarian – a narrow-minded person that will never let facts win arguments – and someone who blindly continues to maintain substantive disagreements with actualities is as fine a compliment I have ever received and one I can wear as a badge of honor.

I showed you facts and in return you again showed me what a Paultard libertarian asshole you can be – which was a total waste of time on both our parts simply because it was something I already knew. You definitely will never let truth get in the way of what you intend to believe.

So pitiful …

t's the reason I have you on bozo, but I only saw your post because I was logged out.

I am going to call you out on this. You are either a damned liar or you cannot correctly write a computer program.

Before you made your last post to me:

Bozo Rank: Number of Full and/or Introductory members who have bozo'd [Gatln]: 12

After you made your last post to me:

Bozo Rank: Number of Full and/or Introductory members who have bozo'd [Gatln]: 13

The base number has always been 12 ever since I returned to post here. From time to time it has moved up and down to 13, 14 and back and forth when Fred, Bucky and you stated you were placing me on bozo.

But as of late [more than two weeks] that number remained at 12.

How do I know this?

Because I cannot post videos and some links using this browser. So I many times must switch to IE to do that. And each time I do, I simply go look at the bozo number.

I did a check when I posted the video to misterwhite. The number was 12 and it had been there for some time.

So, Pinguinite, you flat out LIED. It doesn’t matter whether anyone else believes you did or not. What matters is that you and I definitely know that you LIED. You seem to have no problem doing that, so I will not either. It only now means that each time I see the screen name “Pinguinite” on this forum – I can correctly and forever see a pseudonym for “LIAR.”

A question that you will never answer since you definitely have me on bozo but one I will ask anyway is: Why did you feel it necessary to lie about such a trivial thing?

Which leads me to wonder that when you lie on such an insignificant matter, how can you ever be trusted when addressing important matters.

Pondering …

That was one of the most bizarre weirdo posts I've ever seen.

But where was it wrong?

TELL ME, PLEASE.

You will please let me know where anything in the post was incorrect.

Yes?

You got some 12-13 people who'v bozo'd you????

WOW!!! I never dreamed anyone would get that many blocks. Not even you. That's incredible! But I do assure you that I am one of those who have. You are off at the moment for this outlandish defense of these cops, for whom there seems to be irrefutable evidence that they had sex with a woman whom they arrested, while she was in their legal law-enforcement custody. Amazing.

And that says it all. I started reading your post. I like the part where you proudly claim you "kick libertarian ass" here, mainly by reposting shallow articles articles from elsewhere. Reposting seems to be your forte as you seem incapable of expressing logical criticism on your own.

I didn't get much farther though, going into skim mode on the rest. I guess the reason I've put you on bozo and not mw is because when mw gets called on things after he digs himself into a hole, he at least seems to slow down in his digging whereas you seem to pick up the pace. You certainly did that here.

Since I didn't find reason to do more than skim your previous post, there's little point in waiting for your next one. So... goodbye.

He supports cops fucking on the clock. Indecent exposure on a car. Theft of taxpayer money for not doing his job. And being able to rape your defendant under duress. Some weirdo shit.

You got some 12-13 people who'v bozo'd you????

WOW!!! I never dreamed anyone would get that many blocks. Not even you. That's incredible!

Yes, that number is carried forward from day one of the forum - but you know that.

I’ll admit it is a surprising number. For I too never realized that so many could care so little about learning the truth.

But I do assure you that I am one of those who have.

I believe it. I just saw where you NOW did it AGAIN.

But I definitely know that you LIED when you said you had me on bozo when we started this last exchange.

Explain this if you can – Why did you place me on bozo and still exchange comments with me?

Furthermore, you stated:

The hypocrisy that you and mw exhibit on this thread …

And now you are posting to me.

You need to please explain your version of hypocrisy and the purpose of bozo. I can understand your confusion with hypocrisy. But I fail to understand why you place someone on bozo and continue to exchange posts with that person.

You do that and you have the audacity to state to me:

You are plainly and irrevocably stupid.

Hmmm – Pot calling the kettle black! Eh?

I guess the reason I've put you on bozo ..

“There you go again” – as Ronald Regan so aptly said – “guessing.”

That has to be the third, fourth, or fifth time you have “guessed” during our exchange. Can’t you ever get anything factually correct? It definitely appears not.

Since I didn't find reason to do more than skim your previous post, there's little point in waiting for your next one. So... goodbye.

Wait. Does this “goodbye” mean you are going to bozo a person you already have on bozo?

Hot Damn – A double bozo. Just WOW.

I have no problem with you not reading and responding to my posts since it in no way interferes with me continuing to post to you and showing the wrongs of your libertarian ways.

He supports cops fucking on the clock …

I could easily be really nasty here and say that you are a god damned fucking son-of-bitch liar.

But I will not.

Instead I will respectfully say that you are wrong – dead wrong.

For I have supported nothing.

I only showed what the law stated.

The “support” is shirt you created in your mind from not being able to correctly understand.

He supports cops ....

You could add anything whatsoever after those first 3 words, and it would still be true.

So.... handcuffing and raping a woman accused of a crime is perfectly acceptable behavior on the part of a uniformed cop.

Are you stating that's what actually happened here or are you posing a hypothetical?

But I fail to understand why you place someone on bozo and continue to exchange posts with that person.

I'll use the Pelosi defense: "I think Pinguinite has a different experience in the use of words, doesn't understand that some of them are fraught with meaning."

Or he's a hypocrite. And a douche.

He supports cops ....

You could add anything whatsoever after those first 3 words, and it would still be true.

Okay, add:

He supports "law and order" both before and after it became a powerful conservative theme in the U.S. in the 1960s. When the one of the leading proponents at that time was Republican Ronald Reagan (as governor of California). Ronald Reagan used it to dissolve a liberal consensus about crime that involved federal court decisions and a pushback against illegal drugs and violent gang activity. Also as a cornerstone suppot for those who were concerned about increasing crimes.

You want more “adds” …

I can easily go on.

You pretend the cops did nothing wrong. It is unlawful to fuck a suspect on duty. It amounts to rape under duress. It is abuse of authority.

You are turning a blind eye again.

I could be nasty and say your evil. But I won't. You're elderly and are probably just not understanding things correctly. Have a good day. Gotta run.

Are you stating that's what actually happened here or are you posing a hypothetical?

According to the article, that was her allegation.

But maybe the cops, while on duty, had consensual sex with a woman they arrested.

Whatever. Go write to the appropriate channels and suggest they be given a promotion, pay raise and cop of the year award for how they handled this woman. You and Gatlin are so far beyond the pale and I don't have time for your so utterly blind loyalty.

But I fail to understand why you place someone on bozo and continue to exchange posts with that person.

I'll use the Pelosi defense: "I think Pinguinite has a different experience in the use of words, doesn't understand that some of them are fraught with meaning."

Or he's a hypocrite. And a douche.

Yea – I go with both.

I till need to figure out about Stone.

But I am not going to waste any time on it.

supports "law and order"

Fucking a suspect while on duty isn't order. It is chaos and wrong.

If you are not signed in you will see all the posts. Maybe that will help maybe not.

You pretend the cops did nothing wrong.

I never pretended any such thing since I was always genuine in my presentation pf the law and I assumed nothing. If there was any pretending to be done, then you pretended to read my statement. You pretended to because you read into it what you wanted to believe and did not try to understand what I was saying.

It is unlawful to fuck a suspect on duty.

You will need to show me such a law in New York in effect at the time of this incident. Don’t bother to waste your time trying to go find one because thee was no such law at the time. I showed clearly – a least to anyone of average intelligent – what the law was at the time of this incident. It is as misterwhite stated – those actions were not illegal.

It amounts to rape under duress.

Show me the law stating this, please

It is abuse of authority.

In order for it to be an abuse of authority, there either had to be a law or a departmental directive against it. I can find none and no one has showed where there is any.

You are turning a blind eye again.

No, Stone. I am simply stating to you what the law is here.

I could be nasty and say your evil. But I won't.

You won’t because you know that you would be wrong. Which shows that you can still use good judgment and common sense. [I could add sometimes – but I won’t. You extending courtesy calls for the mutual reciprocal].

You're elderly and are probably just not understanding things correctly.

Yes, I am elderly. But you are wrong about me not understanding thigs correctly.

I do understand things extremely well and most correctly because “with age comes wisdom.”

You don’t believe that?

Then here, let me show you a study confirming this:

A new study led by Professor of Psychology Frank Durgin, which appears in the journal I-Perception, finds that older adults are better at interpreting the correct slope of a hill than young adults, which he believes is because of greater life experience.

In the study, Durgin and his team -- which includes Assistant Professor of Psychology Cat Norris, Psychology Department research manager Abigail Dean, Jeahyun Oh ' 15, and Chris Thomson '15 -- asked about 50 college students and 50 adults from the surrounding community ranging from age 18 to 72 to properly gauge the slope of the hill from Sharples Dining Hall to Parrish Hall. They discovered that among participants with no knowledge of slope, older participants gave significantly more accurate estimates of the Sharples Hill than younger adults.

Below, Durgin answers a few questions about the study.

Why study the perception of hill slant?

Hills look very steep to humans compared to their true slant. A sloped path that looks like it is 20 degrees is probably no more than about 5 degrees. There is a very steep path from the Sharples Dining Hall up toward Parrish Hall. Students who walk it everyday typically judge it to be about 20-25 degrees. Measured with an inclinometer, it is less than six degrees. Our lab has proposed that hills look steep because it is useful for perception to exaggerate differences. Gravity is so strong that very few surfaces that we encounter are steeper than 35 degrees. Most on this campus,are less than 10 degrees, but they certainly look much steeper to us. Understanding how hill slant can be distorted may tell us something more about how perception works.

What was the purpose of your particular study and how did you carry it out?

There is a lot of folklore suggesting that hills might look even steeper if you are an older adult or you are fatigued. But we were somewhat skeptical of these ideas. Indeed, most of the data that has been published on how aging affects the perception of hill slant has been more consistent with the idea that older adults give lower, more accurate estimates than younger adults, but a subset of data collected many years ago where older adults gave higher estimates has continued to be used to argue that older adults really do see hills as steeper.

We were concerned that the instructions used in that study may have biased the older adults they tested to think the experimenters wanted them to give high estimates, and people tend to try to be helpful. In our study, we sought to sample a wide range of ages and personalities by recruiting not only college students, but also about 50 adults from the surrounding community ranging in age from 18 to 72. We didn't want people to feel like we were selecting them for their age.

We asked each participant in our study to give estimates of a few hills on campus (while standing near the base of the hill) using a variety of measures -- verbal estimates, adjustment of a 2-D angle to represent the hill slant, and holding their unseen hand out parallel to the hill -- to assess their perception of hill slant. We also assessed their knowledge about slant. For example, people who participate in downhill skiing have often had opportunity to learn the true slants of hills and thus to learn about the discrepancy between perception and reality. We gave them personality measures as well to measure things like conscientiousness and agreeableness.

And you found that older adults didn't give higher estimates than younger adults?

Our overall sample of just over 100 people was not particularly large, but the data gave us a very clear picture of two main effects. First, there was a clear effect of having experiential knowledge. Although they still gave overestimates, people who reported having some experiential knowledge about hill slants gave lower, more accurate estimates than those who reported no knowledge. Similarly, we observed that our older participants gave estimates that were about the same as our knowledgable participants -- even if the older participants did not report having any specific knowledge, it still seemed like their life experience had made them better estimators. In support of the idea that people were intentionally applying their knowledge (rather than actually seeing the hills as less steep), we found that more conscientious people were more likely to use their knowledge (show an effect of knowledge) than less conscientious people.

Were you surprised by what you found and how can your findings be applied in the future?

Our findings are probably surprising to many because of the widespread belief that things like aging can make the world look different. But the perception of the geometry of the world, in itself, doesn't seem to be affected by aging, apart from possible effects of lost acuity. This fits the idea that the overestimation of perceived hill slant is an adaption to the environment (the predominance of shallow slants) rather than a measure of individual strength or ability.

It is not possible to measure perception directly because perception is subjective, but there are lots of reasons to believe that people share a common perceptual experience, such as the impression that hills are much steeper than they are. Our research helps to provide new ways to try to dissociate differences in judgment from genuine differences in perception. And whereas much research on aging emphasizes perceptual decline, when it comes to space perception for navigation, older adults do well. And they also seem to have acquired wisdom with their years about the difference between how thing seem and how things are. This is a point well worth making.

And so it came to be and I did not need to read here where a ew study confirms adage that with age comes wisdom for it is something I fully realized and appreciate with the passing of time.

And I now that “with age comes wisdom, at least when it comes to knowing that things aren't always as they appear.”

Try to thoroughly understand all of this, Stone, and please remember it anytime you may again try to cast an aspersion on an elderly sage and question his mental abilities or doubt him.

Now, do you want to stop picking at my posts and concluding things that are not there and know exactly how I feel about this matter and these cops after I have now explained the law.

I you do, then I will tell you that while they did nothing illegal that I can find or find any departmental directive they violated I do however think they should not have acted in this unprofessional manner and I do not condone their actions. If I were their superior officer, I would have immediately fired the both of them had I found a found a violation of a law or departmental direction under an authority do so. They simply could not be fired without cause. The union would have had them back on the job in no time with lots of law suit money in their pockets.

And so, my esteemed friend, I say to you the PD should immediately add a departmental directive and the legislature pass a law [which I believe has been done or is being done] that will hopefully preclude that unethical and perhaps immoral action again. And if it does happen – then fire their asses and bring charges under the law or departmental regulations.

I trust I have made myself perfectly clear on my position and I would have do so at any time I was asked and not too busy explaining the law.

Now, Stone, aren’t you glad you asked me how I feel on this matter instead of jumping to conclusions because I was merely citing law?

Oh – wait.

You didn’t – Did you?

Have a good day. Gotta run.

Stop back by anytime you can.

It is always such a pleasure to have a dialogue with another intelligent person.

There are so few of us left anymore – Eh?

supports "law and order"

Fucking a suspect while on duty isn't order.

Woah now.

Don’t you dare ever try to pull a Deckard or Pinguinite on me – “Old” Gatlin.

You know exactly what I said and exactly what I meant.

But I will accept your cutesy as funny.

You continue by saying:

It is chaos and wrong.

I don’t know how you fit chaos in but I definitely agree with you that it’s “wrong.”

While we can both agree that it was “wrong” – in our opinions and against our moral convictions – however it was not illegal or unlawful.

According to the article, that was her allegation.

Yes it was.

"But maybe the cops, while on duty, had consensual sex with a woman they arrested."

Well, the charges against them were dropped, so maybe, I don't know, they were telling the truth and their accuser made “false, misleading, and inconsistent statements.”

and suggest they be given a promotion, pay raise and cop of the year award for how they handled this woman.

I believe they were demoted because of their unprofessional (but legal) conduct. I'm willing to accept that and move on.