Search On For Cop's Wife, Officials Probe Death Of His Previous Wife

why arnt you all convicting the cop just like you do every one else

taxpayer wrote:

why arnt you all convicting the cop just like you do every one else

LOL! Well, I think the BB residents are doing a good job of that themselves, don't you think?

Plainfield Mom wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL! Well, I think the BB residents are doing a good job of that themselves, don't you think?

yes I do. but what about all these know it alls who convict people without any solid evidence

taxpayer wrote:

<quoted text>yes I do. but what about all these know it alls who convict people without any solid evidence

oh brother.... you are something... you come in every now and then, and have YET to say anything nice. Youre a grumpy old man who just likes to bitch and moan.... get over it already..... oh and dont worry, this guy will probably be tried and convicted before a jury of 12 too. Happy now??

Too Close to Home wrote:

<quoted text>
oh brother.... you are something... you come in every now and then, and have YET to say anything nice. Youre a grumpy old man who just likes to bitch and moan.... get over it already..... oh and dont worry, this guy will probably be tried and convicted before a jury of 12 too. Happy now??

that is the way it supposed to be in this country. not a bunch of morons like you and and others who post here and declare every one guilty without any evidence or even a trial

taxpayer wrote:

<quoted text>that is the way it supposed to be in this country. not a bunch of morons like you and and others who post here and declare every one guilty without any evidence or even a trial

Taxpayer,

So, do you have an opinion on the Peterson case, or do just repress all judgement on all cases? Just wondering...

taxpayer wrote:

<quoted text>that is the way it supposed to be in this country. not a bunch of morons like you and and others who post here and declare every one guilty without any evidence or even a trial

The way its supposed to be in this FORUM is that we come in here to discuss things, and not provoke arguments. NO ONE was even discussing the innocence or guilt of this guy. YOU are the one who came here looking for trouble.

Now why dont you go to the BB forum and spew your garbage there? Maybe the Peterson cheerleaders in there could use your support. We already have MATT the CS defense team here.

Time will tell. It seems as though more and more husbands think they can off their wives and get away with it. Something tells me this one will be the one he gets pinched for. What's with the name Peterson? Is he trying to be funny or something?:\

Taxpayer you will find that when you go against the flow ( majority )....... they do not play well with others.

You have to tread very carefully.

You HAVE to realize that 99.834762947576024386% of these folks do have CS tried and convicted, don't you?

There are only a few that will post "innocent until proven guilty".

It is a bandwagon dude, you know that right?

Time will tell. I don't understand how husbands now-a-days think that they can off their wives and get away with it. Looks like this one will be the one he gets pinched for. They should have a show for husbands who snap. :)

matt wrote:

Taxpayer you will find that when you go against the flow ( majority )....... they do not play well with others.
You have to tread very carefully.
You HAVE to realize that 99.834762947576024386% of these folks do have CS tried and convicted, don't you?
There are only a few that will post "innocent until proven guilty".
It is a bandwagon dude, you know that right?

Geeze, I knew I should have kicked your azz when I had the chance (jab, jab, kick, miss, damn it all to hell).

matt wrote:

Taxpayer you will find that when you go against the flow ( majority )....... they do not play well with others.
You have to tread very carefully.
You HAVE to realize that 99.834762947576024386% of these folks do have CS tried and convicted, don't you?
There are only a few that will post "innocent until proven guilty".
It is a bandwagon dude, you know that right?

You know Matthew, you've got it all wrong. If you would have been more respectful of others when you posted from the very beginning, we would have respected your opinion. But you were far from respectful. You were the finger-pointer, the criticizer, the ridiculer (is that a word?) of the rest of us. A few people on here actually defended your opinion, until they too, could see what you were up to. Lately, you've been better-behaved, and God knows why, have been forgiven by some of us who hold no hard feelings. But here you are, back at it again, trying to provoke a fight.

Oh, and by the way, I do believe in innocent until proven guilty. But that doesn't mean you sit on your hands and don't offer support to the families and friends. My prayers go out to all of the people involved, Craig included.

Plainfield Mom wrote:

<quoted text>
Geeze, I knew I should have kicked your azz when I had the chance (jab, jab, kick, miss, damn it all to hell).

How long have I been saying he needs an a$$ kicking?

Freespirit8 wrote:

<quoted text>
How long have I been saying he needs an a$$ kicking?

Someone should have pulled out her cans of whoopass when she had the chance LOL. Well, we can always find a reason to get together again. Just don't let on that the can of whoopass will be armed and ready LOL

matt wrote:

Taxpayer you will find that when you go against the flow ( majority )....... they do not play well with others.
You have to tread very carefully.
You HAVE to realize that 99.834762947576024386% of these folks do have CS tried and convicted, don't you?
There are only a few that will post "innocent until proven guilty".
It is a bandwagon dude, you know that right?

I am really disappointed in you Matt. And to think that I went and emailed a friend to tell her that you were really a nice guy in person, a teddy bear if you will. And now you have to go and turn into the brat again. Just admit what you admitted to us Tuesday nite at Chili's. I won't expose it, I'll let you do that. But I think you know what I'm talking about. Something that you said that really surprised me, at least that it was coming out of YOUR mouth. When you said that tho, you actually made me believe that you were human, and not some heavy weight (and I'm not using that term derogatively) who is out to try to be a hero to people who don't even know who he is. You mirrored what a lot of people have already said here, but when they said it you jumped down their throats. Sorry, but I can't sit here and watch you be cruel to my friends.

ok, so maybe the words derogatively isn't a word, but I think you know what I'm saying. Just don't crucify me for making up words. It's been a long, exhausting, emotional week and all I want to do is go home and rest, but I have another hour & a half before I can do that. So bite me if you don't like my new word.

Stargazer1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Someone should have pulled out her cans of whoopass when she had the chance LOL. Well, we can always find a reason to get together again. Just don't let on that the can of whoopass will be armed and ready LOL

This is why its probably better that I wasnt able to make it.... I dont have to eat a can of whoop ass, my body just produces it naturally.

Too Close to Home wrote:

<quoted text>
This is why its probably better that I wasnt able to make it.... I dont have to eat a can of whoop ass, my body just produces it naturally.

LOL!

Regarding the Peterson case.... she is 23, he is 53... does anyone find it sick that a POLICE SGT was sleeping with a girl when she was 16 and he was FORTY SIX?????

Too Close to Home wrote:

Regarding the Peterson case.... she is 23, he is 53... does anyone find it sick that a POLICE SGT was sleeping with a girl when she was 16 and he was FORTY SIX?????

how did he get away with that? Isn't that statutory rape?