Log In
Create Account
SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ
Login
Create Account
Search
Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...
RSS Feed
Hosting by DigitalOcean
Support ST on Ko-Fi
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Dec 11, 11:29
2: Dec 11, 07:59
3: Dec 10, 18:15
4: Dec 10, 12:28
5: Dec 10, 09:30
6: Dec 10, 05:59
7: Dec 9, 17:07
8: Dec 9, 13:47
9: Dec 9, 10:33
10: Dec 9, 07:33
11: Dec 8, 17:50
12: Dec 8, 10:32
13: Dec 8, 06:23
14: Dec 7, 16:52
15: Dec 7, 07:17
16: Dec 6, 14:40
17: Dec 6, 10:07
18: Dec 6, 07:32
19: Dec 5, 19:48
20: Dec 5, 12:51
Posts: 155
In response to
"
My thoughts are a tad different. I think they thought he got away and finally figured they had to let people get on with life. -- nm
"
by
Bacon
Or that's what they wanted him to think. -- nm
Posted by
tl (aka liioulu)
Apr 19 '13, 17:35
(No message)
Responses:
I can't see putting people in harms way like this to catch a suspect. The police don't work that way.
-
Bacon
Apr 19, 17:38
6
I think it might be a bit of both. And keeping that many people on lockdown for too long is a problem. -- nm
-
tl
Apr 19, 17:40
they only do that for missing persons and specifically ask people to check sheds and garages, etc. -- nm
-
zork
Apr 19, 17:40
4
They didn't ask people to check sheds, put they did ask them to stay vigilant. And that is what happened.
-
tl
Apr 19, 17:43
3
IMO, saying "stay vigilant" and directing them into possible dangerous situations are very different
-
zork
Apr 19, 17:45
1
I agree. I know they did the first, I have no evidence they did the second. -- nm
-
tl
Apr 19, 17:52
I totally disagree, but you can think that -- nm
-
Bacon
Apr 19, 17:44
Post a message
top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.
