💪 Tough Guys Patrick Sean Tomlinson / @stealthygeek / "Torque Wheeler" / @RealAutomanic / Kempesh / Padawan v2.5 - "Conservative" sci-fi author with TDS, armed "drunk with anger management issues" and terminated parental rights, actual tough guy, obese, paid Quasi, paid thousands to be repeatedly unbanned from Twitter

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Major said:
I really hope Fatrick gets a FAT heart attack and lands on FAT backside
Click to expand...
His organs are probably quite enlarged.

Obviously his stomach is offensively distended from being stuffed full of meatloaf, cheap beer, grease, niggeroni and mustard slathered pretzels on a daily basis.

His heart is probably enlarged and his lungs have expanded due to his hollering and screaming at the police.

His liver is a different story. It’s probably like a shriveled sponge and close to failure.
 
Useful_Mistake said:
Supreme Court issued an opinion on how cases of police's excessive force are to be handled. I think it might be relevant to Patrick's case. In particular they rejected the "circumstances existing at the precise time" theory that MPD relied on, and instructed that every previous interaction is to be included when considering the "totality of the circumstances” with no time limit.

Click to expand...
This doesn't seem directly relevant, although I'd be very surprised if Tomlinson's lawyer doesn't at least try to use it. I think the context here involves the officer's own unreasonable behavior creating the specific dangerous situation he then used to justify the shooting.

I'm surprised such an obviously dumb rule survived long enough to have to be thrown out by a unanimous Supreme Court opinion (and Roberts even apparently picked Kagan to write it). A Justice from the Ninth Circuit smacks down a Fifth Circuit opinion. Pure pwnage.

I'll note this case involves a brief interaction (apparently the only one) between the defendant and the victim, in which the defendant was personally involved in every aspect of the interaction.

Tomlinson's case involves interactions with multiple officers and the department itself, and the city of Milwaukee itself. I doubt this would really apply to some presumed gestalt institutional memory and ascribe the knowledge of every prior interaction to every state actor.

It would seem to apply to officers who had had multiple personal interactions with Tomlinson. They would be presumed to remember things they had personally experienced, such as having witnessed Tomlinson feebly attempting to punch a cop. However, if all they had was a general note that a specific address or individual had been swatted in the past, they can't really be presumed to know everything that happened.

Therefore, I am assuming Tomlinson's counsel will probably cite this case as supplemental authority to any claims involving officers who had multiple personal interactions with Tomlinson.
Uncle Buck said:
I also don't believe that adopting a "totality of the circumstances" approach changes much of anything, particularly under Fatboy's novel theory that the police somehow should have ignored a call or otherwise not been diligent in at least making sure there was no shenanigans at his location simply because of his assertion that he lived at a "known swaTTing" location.
Click to expand...
I can see the defendants bringing this up, too, even if this is specifically a deadly force case and related to a rule that is arguably narrowly directed solely at deadly force cases. I think the "totality of the circumstances" type test, which I think again arguably applies to much 1983 reasonableness doctrine, actually helps the defendants.

Things like swinging on cops, making death threats against domestic partners and even unborn children, and shrieking and screaming like a lunatic, would justify treating even a "swat victim" as a potential threat, at least to officers who personally knew of such things.

(Also I think the totality test already does apply to this particular set of facts but that's open to argument.)
 
Last edited:
Uncle Buck said:
First, remove any reference to traffic stops and substitute "swaTTing".
Click to expand...
Also this SCOTUS case involves an extreme level of fairly obvious unreasonableness. This wasn't even on the level of an obvious drunk driver (despite the "I SMELLED WEED I SMELLED WEED" shit) driving dangerously, much less a serial killer, or a bank robber fleeing a running gun battle, or even just a felony stop.

It was some guy who was suspected of not paying tolls. Literal nothing shit. And this dumbshit officer thinks jumping onto a moving car, and blinding himself by doing it since his head was above the roof of the car, and just wildly and blindly shooting the guy he can't see because of dumb shit he did himself, was "reasonable" somehow?

Now, I don't know what the hell is in the water the Fifth Circuit drinks, but while it's possible the actual fact pattern down at the trial court differs somewhat from what SCOTUS summarized it as (happens all the time look at Palsgraf), that rule was dumb beyond all belief.
JustStopDude said:
It's not even that intelligent people don't try to be cops. Police departments will routinely not accept candidates that are too intelligent, with the mindset that if a candidate isn't a mouth breathing moron, they more likely to have other options to take another job.
Click to expand...
Fun fact: High IQ applicants for being cops have sued for being turned down on the grounds of them being too smart. They lost. One of the prominent cases is Jordan v. City of New London. So yes, there are jurisdictions where you literally have to fail an IQ test to be a cop.
 
Last edited:
AnOminous said:
although I'd be very surprised if Tomlinson's lawyer doesn't at least try to use it
Click to expand...
AnOminous said:
Therefore, I am assuming Tomlinson's counsel will probably cite this case as supplemental authority to any claims involving officers who had multiple personal interactions with Tomlinson.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I don't see any real downsides from not notifying the court about this.
 
rusty shackleford 1 said:
It’s his extremely homosexual way of saying he’s about to block her. She’s getting kicked off his spaceship, child. Can’t help her now.
Click to expand...
It's an extremely homosexual reference to the airlock scene in Outland, literally the seminal example of HIGH NOON. . .IN SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE (that was literally the pitch for it)! Or maybe some other wildly inaccurate depiction of what happens if you experience decompression. . .IN SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE!
NOT Sword Fighter Super said:
Arrested for WHAT, you mong?
Click to expand...
Give Rick some credit. He actually said we weren't guilty of something we're accused of, even if he's still a FFWBT.

Baby steps.

Baby steps.
 
Useful_Mistake said:
It does, though, as "totality of the circumstances" now has no time limit, and every "circumstance" known to the police is to be considered.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling this is going to be a huge mistake. It just makes the burden on the police that much larger.

Vibe_Guy said:
whats ONA?
Click to expand...

It's shorthand for Onanism.
 
Last edited:
reptile baht spaniard rid said:
It's the absolutely gayest death threat I've ever seen, and I've seen "assraped to death by aids-filled niggercocks"
Click to expand...
Threatening to space someone should only be done by someone who owns a space ship or at the very least someone who plays Space Station 13.

The Noise said:
Alcohol?
Click to expand...
"This alcohol is contaminated with water at approximately 60% by volume"
 
not william stenchever said:
Threatening to space someone should only be done by someone who owns a space ship or at the very least someone who plays Space Station 13.


"This alcohol is contaminated with water at approximately 60% by volume"
Click to expand...
Is Judge Gladys Dykes on the Fifth Circuit?
 
Spunt said:
Pat only does anything so that he can claim the label of the thing as an achievement. He's a sociopath who doesn't care about what he actually does, only what other people think that he does. His entire life revolves around bragging rights. Once you understand this, a lot of his behaviour and statements start to make sense. Pat's psychology is perverse, but it isn't complicated.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is why I said 'pretending' to be a writer. I agree with all of this.

I do think that his ego makes it so he can't suffer any slight (hence the compulsion to respond to every single comment) which is why he's such a spiteful, vengeful Man of Pig. When he loses face or status, that is an unacceptable, incredibly harsh blow to his perceived status and he needs to do something about it.

It's very pajeet of Pat. Which makes sense because swimming around in feces is second nature for both pajeets and pigs.

Accepting visitation rights or parental responsibilities would be tantamount to letting the idiots 'win', which is unacceptable.

I honestly don't think he gives a shit about being a parent and was secretly relieved he didn't have to do anything with his kid, because that means more Chubby's for Chubby. The only 'use' it has for him is 'gotcha' moments in online arguments, which is like randomly bringing up your Jewish wife completely unprompted.
 
TerminalTryHard said:
Say what you want about nuJackie but she's getting a great classic shame response the likes of which we haven't seen in a while.

At this rate it won't be long before Shame is threatening to hack the farms again.
Click to expand...
I don't know why Shane's chosen this moment to come back swinging, but I'm so glad. His early-'00s-vintage internet tough guy posting combined with his overall failure as a human being is some of the funniest shit I've seen on the Farms.
 
Plum Smuggler said:
Shane is coming for heads.
View attachment 7366422
View attachment 7366423View attachment 7366424
Click to expand...
Note for newcomers to this incredibly fat thread:
Shane's girlfriend is the proud owner of a GIGA-GUNT
gunt-off.webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom