JR 137
Grandmaster
You do, but as George Costanza’s “T-Bone” example taught us, you can’t give yourself a nickname. And you can’t force it.
Putting Other Martial Artists Down
- Thread starter Bill Mattocks
- Start date
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Anyone with the nickname bear or bull came up with that themselves.
jobo
Grandmaster
i was slow jo, the frames lasted as long as it took for my oppoint to get bored stiff, do some thing reckless and let me win, usually about 45 mins a frame, some times they just got bored and went home, playing me best of 5 was a day out
JR 137
Grandmaster
What about “The Russian Bear” Aleksandr Karelin?
I don’t think he gave himself that, or any other nickname. And if he actually did, there’s not a thing anyone can do about it.
Side note: I love the tweet Joe Rogan had about that pic. He said (paraphrased) “Any time I think I’m tough, I look at this pic and realize how much of a pu$$y I really am.” I can’t stand Rogan, but that’s a classic line. Easily one of the best and most real quotes ever.
I picked up two nicknames in high school: Lucky Charms and Captain Caveman. Luckily, only the latter stuck for very long (my best friend from HS and college still calls me "Cave").
OP
OP
My nickname in the Corps was maddog. Still is. I've never called myself that.
Knew a guy called Scrap Iron, one called Favorsham, one called The Load and another called Wheatian Kazowie Bang Bang. None of them picked their nicknames, but all of them stuck. And they could all fight like the Dickens.
I had a lot of nicknames, but Jackface was the most common amongst my friends.
I had a lot of nicknames, but Jackface was the most common amongst my friends.
Paul Ince did.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
You travel in an interesting crowd. By any chance do all of you keep old Dick Tracy comics around?
You travel in an interesting crowd. By any chance do all of you keep old Dick Tracy comics around?
Lol. We've been friends a long time. Used to have snowball fights together, then started dating girls, running from the cops [not having done anything, just ran so, hopefully, they'd chase us] went to colleges, stopped just going to dojos and started living in the damn things - but that was just a thirty year phase, buying houses, became cops, travelled . Been an interesting ride, at least so far.
No comics, no, we were more of the Mad Magazine crowd. But we used to send Christmas cards like this.
"The Load" actually went on to become the Police Commissioner. We still give him crap about that.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
So what happened to Jackface? I don't see him.
Always good when we can look back and say we had an interesting ride, with more fun than regrets.
I remember when if a cop saw somebody running, it was likely just assumed he had done something wrong, so they would run him down, then look for what he had done. Ah the "good ol days." Not assuming guilt because of running was one of the first things I learned. Felt stupid when I was called out for it, but it made sense too, so I quit. But as you no doubt recall, there weren't nearly as many joggers on the streets then, so running was assumed to be a reason for assumptions of wrong doing.
Thankfully we've come a long way since then.
Not always, about two years ago a friend and I were having a walk probably around 10PM in an upper middle class neighborhood (the town next to our college). We decided about whatever time to turn back and head back to the college. Apparently, unknown to either of us, we did this about half a block before a cop car was parked. Simply the act of turning away from the car and walking in the opposite direction was enough for him to follow us and start questioning us. Or it was the fact that this was a mostly white neighborhood, I'm Hispanic and my friend is Indian. Either way, they assumed guilt, so just started questioning us to see if we had done anything wrong.So what happened to Jackface? I don't see him.
Always good when we can look back and say we had an interesting ride, with more fun than regrets.
I remember when if a cop saw somebody running, it was likely just assumed he had done something wrong, so they would run him down, then look for what he had done. Ah the "good ol days." Not assuming guilt because of running was one of the first things I learned. Felt stupid when I was called out for it, but it made sense too, so I quit. But as you no doubt recall, there weren't nearly as many joggers on the streets then, so running was assumed to be a reason for assumptions of wrong doing.
Thankfully we've come a long way since then.
Different time me and some other friends were actually running from some cops. We HAD done something, I think we had egged one of our friends cars for not hanging out with us (and later helped him clean it). About five minutes later, a cop car came into the parking lot we were hanging out in, so we just ran. He was too lazy to chase.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
Or hadn't heard of any crime you were likely to be running from.
Do you think all cops are too lazy to do their job, or just that one? Is it their job to chase after everyone who runs?
You don't like their actions in your first paragraph, nor the lack of action in the second. Do you just dislike cops? It is your right not to, for whatever reason of course.
I actually find this response funny; it's probably the first time someone has accused me of disliking cops. About half my family are LEO so I'm normally the ones defending them to my friends.
In neither situation did I mean to complain or suggest that the cops did anything wrong.
In the first situation; if I was a police officer in a suburban white area, and I saw two people of different races walking towards me at night then suddenly turn away when I got in view, I would probably also be suspicious of it. I don't blame them, just pointing out that they were assuming guilt based on suspicions. To clarify, they didn't detain either of us, didn't do an unwarranted (or any) search of us, didn't abuse us in any way, just acted on their suspicions.
In the second situation; I guess lazy was the wrong word. I'm not suggesting they were too lazy to do their job, since no where in the job description AFAIK does it say that you have to chase anyone that you see running. Just pointing out that there was a reason for them to assume guilt if they wanted to, but they chose not to run us down.
It really was not a complaint, just pointing out two separate instances, one where they acted on suspicions, and one where they did not (in different towns) to show that, based on my experiences, if there is a rule on assuming guilt, it doesn't seem to be a hard rule.
As a side note, while I am not an LEO of any sort, I would imagine that if I were, and I pulled into a parking lot to see 5 teenagers start running, and I hadn't heard of any nearby crimes, I would be too lazy to chase them. No reason wasting my breath on 5 people running in different directions, when I don't even know they did anything to waste my breath for.
CB Jones
Senior Master
So what happened to Jackface? I don't see him.
Always good when we can look back and say we had an interesting ride, with more fun than regrets.
I remember when if a cop saw somebody running, it was likely just assumed he had done something wrong, so they would run him down, then look for what he had done. Ah the "good ol days." Not assuming guilt because of running was one of the first things I learned. Felt stupid when I was called out for it, but it made sense too, so I quit. But as you no doubt recall, there weren't nearly as many joggers on the streets then, so running was assumed to be a reason for assumptions of wrong doing.
Thankfully we've come a long way since then.
What?
Running from police is still considered reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop and frisk and determine why suspect is running.
Nothing wrong with proactive policing.
OP
OP
Lots of people who have never worked in law enforcement do not know what it is, how it works, or what the rules are. The media is just as bad.
In general, a police officer on duty has the right to stop anyone and ask them who they are and what they are about. There is no probable cause required to believe a crime has been committed, it can be 'mere suspicion'. Mere suspicion has been defined by the courts as basically what we call a 'gut feeling'.
The cops cannot arrest anyone for that, of course. But they can detain, (and in most jurisdictions) perform a brief 'pat-down' for weapons only (for the officer's safety) and can ask basic questions. If they feel the answers are not sufficient, but they do not have probable cause for an arrest, they can fill out a field interview card, which can be useful if a crime is later determined to have been committed in that general time and place or by people matching the general description of those in the FI cards.
Here are the typical standards used by cops and recognized by the courts in the USA:
Mere suspicion - gut feeling. Nothing definable.
Reasonable suspicion - more than a gut feeling. The cop can articulate what makes them think a crime has been committed and the person(s) they have stopped may be responsible. Less than probable cause.
Between Reasonable suspicion and Probable cause is what is known as a 'Terry stop'. It is a brief detention, and it may include the person being stopped being put in handcuffs - again, for the officer's safety. If probable cause is not developed as a result of the stop, the handcuffs are removed and the person is free to go. They are not under arrest, they are not charged with a crime.
Probable cause - the cop can define what happened, who did it, and a reasonable and prudent person would agree that the person(s) stopped are responsible. This is often known as "PC" and it is necessary for things like pulling someone over in a traffic stop. For example, the cop witnessed a car with a burned out taillight, and pulled over the car. They have probable cause to believe that the driver is violating the law - because they saw with their own eyes that the light is burned out.
So yeah, when you walk towards a cop car, see it, then turn and walk away, that's 'mere suspicion' to many cops and reason enough to stop and ask questions. It does not have to have anything to do with racial profiling. The cop is simply using his or her basic intelligence and experience that says that a couple people who turn back upon sighting a police vehicle may have a reason for doing so. If the stop does not provide PC for arrest, then a brief interview is generally the end of it.
In general, a police officer on duty has the right to stop anyone and ask them who they are and what they are about. There is no probable cause required to believe a crime has been committed, it can be 'mere suspicion'. Mere suspicion has been defined by the courts as basically what we call a 'gut feeling'.
The cops cannot arrest anyone for that, of course. But they can detain, (and in most jurisdictions) perform a brief 'pat-down' for weapons only (for the officer's safety) and can ask basic questions. If they feel the answers are not sufficient, but they do not have probable cause for an arrest, they can fill out a field interview card, which can be useful if a crime is later determined to have been committed in that general time and place or by people matching the general description of those in the FI cards.
Here are the typical standards used by cops and recognized by the courts in the USA:
Mere suspicion - gut feeling. Nothing definable.
Reasonable suspicion - more than a gut feeling. The cop can articulate what makes them think a crime has been committed and the person(s) they have stopped may be responsible. Less than probable cause.
Between Reasonable suspicion and Probable cause is what is known as a 'Terry stop'. It is a brief detention, and it may include the person being stopped being put in handcuffs - again, for the officer's safety. If probable cause is not developed as a result of the stop, the handcuffs are removed and the person is free to go. They are not under arrest, they are not charged with a crime.
Probable cause - the cop can define what happened, who did it, and a reasonable and prudent person would agree that the person(s) stopped are responsible. This is often known as "PC" and it is necessary for things like pulling someone over in a traffic stop. For example, the cop witnessed a car with a burned out taillight, and pulled over the car. They have probable cause to believe that the driver is violating the law - because they saw with their own eyes that the light is burned out.
So yeah, when you walk towards a cop car, see it, then turn and walk away, that's 'mere suspicion' to many cops and reason enough to stop and ask questions. It does not have to have anything to do with racial profiling. The cop is simply using his or her basic intelligence and experience that says that a couple people who turn back upon sighting a police vehicle may have a reason for doing so. If the stop does not provide PC for arrest, then a brief interview is generally the end of it.
Again, I have no complaint about being stopped. I included race because I don't know which one caused them to assume guilt, but either way it does not matter. I was just describing two different situations, both where there would be a reason, but nothing definitive, to be suspicious, but in one situation something was done and the other situation nothing was. I have no issue with how either situation played out, but those situations show, to me, that there is no hard and fast rule regarding suspicion/assumed guilt that has to be followed.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
Gene Lebell did NOT teach or fought with Bruce, here is the proof
- Latest: Thonged warrior
-
-
