Is a guy who trashes veteran memorabilia a total psycho?

Listen, folks, goldenowl73 slapped me with a warning for my post yesterday, even though alcohol wasn't even mentioned once in any of the news reports.

goldenowl73 is just trolling by bringing up alcohol and that specific post.

He should be focusing on yesterday's headlines, because those stories were about a veteran being brutally beaten and suffering a crushed skull.

Just look at today's news instead.

You have to consider the context from yesterday when that warning was handed out.

It seems goldenowl73 was completely out of the loop and just jumped in solely to hand out warnings.

Take a look at the other warning he handed out in that same vein: I can't believe how many warnings goldenowl73 is handing out. Even the respected forum regulars are appalled: A review of the warned post.

edit: He added that this was all in response to a documentary about Memphis that was airing on channel 4 at the time.

wiredangler5 said:The excerpt from the law you posted basically opens up the debate regarding the Prosecutor General's involvement in what happened in Memphis, and by doing that, you're essentially validating the officer's actions. I just added my own take on why I think Kotulica is perfectly within their rights to call that whole situation pure savagery.

Oh, absolutely. Because apparently, putting on a uniform transforms a person into a refined gentleman of high society, granting them an automatic pass for any brutality—even if they're staying silent when they shouldn't or opening fire on someone—just because they claim to be acting on behalf of the law. 😉

😕
Honestly, I'm exhausted by this whole thing, and I really should have realized earlier:

Sam Green73 said:p.s. please stop reading things into my posts that I didn't actually say.

I really should have known better than to jump into a discussion that starts off with such absolute nonsense.

Sam Green73 said:😕
I’m honestly exhausted by this whole thing, and I’ve already said my piece:

I really should have known better than to jump into a discussion that starts off on such a nonsensical, irrational footing.

Yeah, you probably shouldn't have stepped in.

Wait, weren't you the one lecturing me about hate speech?

Regarding my post?

But then why didn't you call out those other posts from Don Kacunka?

😂😂🤣

edit: Admins, please just lock this thread. This issue is settled.

goldenowl73 is a totally biased moderator who doesn't even follow politics. He barely looks at the threads, and when he finally does, he trips over his own feet trying to shut down anyone with right-leaning views or anyone who dares to disagree with his worldview.

The only saving grace is that he’s rarely actually around.

Then you've got Sam Green73, a veteran hush-money type who shuts down any topic he doesn't personally like. He acts like a bodyguard for a handful of specific politicians and parties, and somehow people have just tolerated it for years...

I honestly don't get it. If you actually want a decent discussion, why wouldn't you kick these types off the moderation team? Instead, they just let them run wild.

And let's be real—I'd probably flag some "right-wing" posts too, maybe even harsher than these mods do. But what these two are doing isn't moderation. It's manipulation. They aren't policing content; they're using their power to force every conversation into their own political bubble.

coppermarlin13 said:He really needs to bring up yesterday's news. Yesterday’s reports were all about how a defender was brutally beaten and suffered a crushed skull.

Just look at today's headlines.

You have to consider yesterday's context when discussing why that card was issued.

Yesterday's news provided the context for one side, while today's provides it for the other. They are polar opposites. As for what the actual truth is, I honestly don't know. But the fact remains that yesterday's accusations regarding "spilled blood" and "brutal beatings and savagery"—which are incredibly heavy terms—were presented straight-up, one-sidedly, and without providing a complete picture of the events. In that light, you could certainly argue it was just fearmongering.

wiredangler5 said:No, he certainly didn't attack him just because he's a veteran; we shouldn't frame it that way, nor should we characterize a police officer in such terms.
But if the officer overstepped his authority, there is absolutely no doubt about that. It is true that the law permits the use of force if someone resists arrest, but even that is strictly bounded...
I wouldn't categorize this kind of beating as an authorized use of force, and I suspect that whoever drafted the laws regarding police authority wouldn't want to find themselves on the receiving end of such tactics. They would likely tell you just as plainly that the officer beat him like a dog and crossed the line...

Let’s be honest and admit that what happened in Memphis was a clear abuse of power. I believe the officers involved were more than trained enough to subdue the individual and take him into custody without leaving him bleeding out on the pavement with severe internal head injuries—and then just leaving him there without any medical assistance...

From what I have gathered from the news reports, if they are accurate, the officer has apparently been suspended. To my mind, that speaks volumes about how he approached his duty and whether he exceeded his mandate...

I see no reason why we cannot call this type of policing brutality, or label the officer a savage. There are people like that in the police force, certainly. Yes, at that moment, they were performing the job the state assigned them—keeping the peace according to the law—but they surely had better options available, at least the one in question did. In the end, they could have called for backup from the rest of the department to handle those three men and make a peaceful arrest if they couldn't manage alone. They had plenty of ways to handle this, and all their options were wide open...

However, this particular officer had no right to act this way, so I see no reason why his actions shouldn't be described as sheer savagery...

By the way, this serves as an answer to coppermarlin13's question, and since I see that using that same terminology regarding the three veterans hasn't prompted any correction from the moderators, I am removing this card because I truly see no justification for it. Especially since, if it was issued, it wasn't applied equally in both instances...

My regards and my respect, for everything said above...🙂

Mr. Anderlon, here is an administrator who might actually be able to save this forum, which is slowly sinking into a heavy, narrow-mindedness born from extremely selective moderation, a lack of understanding, and a total absence of intuition, if you'll excuse my bluntness...😉

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Yesterday’s news gave us one side of the story, while today’s gives us the complete opposite. They’re diametrically opposed. As for what the actual truth is—who knows? But the fact remains that yesterday's accusations regarding "spilled blood" and "brutal beatings and savagery"—which are incredibly heavy words, by the way—were presented one-sidedly, without a full picture of what actually went down. In that light, you could easily argue it was just pure flame war tactics.

Was blood spilled?
Yes.

Was Darko Pajcic brutally beaten?
Yes.

Was it savagery?
Yes.

And...

wiredangler5 said:Let's be real—what happened in Memphis was a total abuse of power. I'm convinced those cops are trained well enough to handle someone without leaving them bleeding out on the pavement with severe head injuries and just walking away without helping.

From what I can gather from the news, if the reports are right, the officer has been suspended. To me, that pretty much says everything you need to know about his conduct and whether he crossed the line.

Scott, don't jump to conclusions just yet. A cop from the 13th Precinct could tell you that a suspension is just standard procedure while they figure out the facts. As for the incident itself, here are a few details:

- He came up behind him and grabbed Dark by the hair, slamming his head into the wall, after which he hit the sidewalk, knocked himself out instantly, and started bleeding from his nose and mouth... link, statement from Robert Horvat

According to his doctor, there's no way he was slammed into a wall; instead, his chin and lips were injured, and then he fell onto the concrete, causing the actual injuries. link, medical description of the injuries.

Both the cop and Horvat could be lying, but the injuries don't lie. Let's wait until the physical evidence reconstructs the scene. Whoever's at fault should pay for their mistakes.

goldenowl73 said:Look, they're just trolling. Constantly trolling. Even other people on this thread are pointing out how much they're baiting us. Just scroll through the posts. And by the way, the official report from the Secretary in Congress today doesn't mention anything about beating up an officer—even if coppermarlin13 claims she heard he was "brutally beaten." It actually mentions a man who fell while trying to smash a slab of stone with a 2.7 BAC.

.

If I can offer my professional opinion—and please, let me clarify, I know a lot more about medicine than you do since I'm a specialist.
A guy falling on the street isn't going to end up with a skull fracture from a simple fall, unless we're talking extreme circumstances. The guy weighs 220 lbs; he must have practically charged at the slab, jumped, and landed right on his head. Honestly, I find that hard to believe. You'd get a skull fracture from a motorcycle accident, a major car crash, or falling from a significant height.
So now you're the one trolling. I consider the officer's actions, which left the man with severe injuries, to be pure savagery. The officer has been suspended, and since we're dealing with serious bodily harm, the DOJ will have to launch a criminal investigation against him officially.
What that cop did was incredibly brutal and wild. We aren't even talking about necessary self-defense here, because the officer wasn't even the target—it was just a slab at the entrance of the Memphis Police Department.
Since the American police officers involved were suspended, it shouldn't be hard to guess the background of the officer who brutally struck an American veteran.

Does this even need a comment? Was this really "official procedure"??


According to my colleague Prof. Gruden, someone with a 2.5 BAC is sluggish and sleepy. There's absolutely no way to call that aggression. A brave veteran certainly didn't just happen to hit his head against a wall. You can read more about it here
. .

Look, I’m not saying he was hit in two different spots—on his chin from below and the back of his head... but in this country, anything can happen. Maybe the guy just tripped on a sidewalk, slammed his chin, and then cracked the back of his skull?

Given the injuries, the story his colleague Horvat is telling actually holds water. When someone pins you against a wall, they usually try to shove you, right? It's a natural reflex to jerk your head up when someone's forcing you into a wall... and that leaves your chin wide open to take the hit.

granitefalcon26 said:If I can offer my professional opinion here—and please, let me just say I know way more about medicine than you do since I’m actually a specialist—it's just not happening.
A guy falling on the street isn't going to end up with a skull fracture unless we're talking some truly extreme circumstances. This guy is 100 kg; he would have had to basically sprint at a concrete slab, dive headfirst, and slam into it. Honestly, looking at how this played out, I find it really hard to buy that story. You get a skull fracture from a motorcycle wreck, a high-speed car crash, or falling from a significant height.
So, yeah, you're totally trolling. The way that cop handled things, leaving a man with such severe injuries, is nothing short of pure savagery. The officer has been suspended, and because we're dealing with serious bodily harm, the Department of Justice is going to have to step in and launch an official criminal investigation against him.
The officer's actions were incredibly brutal and wild. We aren't even talking about self-defense here; the cop wasn't even under threat—he was just hitting a guy against a wall near the entrance of the police station.
Since the American officers involved have been suspended, it shouldn't be too hard to guess the background of the cop who went absolutely feral on an American veteran.

Does this even need a comment? Was that supposed to be "official procedure" or something??

According to what my colleague Prof. Gruden said, someone with a blood alcohol content of 0.25% is usually sluggish and sleepy. There's no way they'd be acting aggressive at all. There's no chance our veteran hit his head against a wall on purpose. You can read more about that right here
.

Unfortunately, though, my dad—who happens to be a chief surgeon—is telling me the exact opposite. He says it is absolutely possible to get a skull fracture from hitting your head on concrete, especially if a person is drunk. When your reflexes are slowed down, the impact against the ground is much harder because your body is completely limp.

I also remember a friend of mine from about ten years ago; he was hiking down the Appalachian Mountains after having a few glasses of wine. He slipped on some leaves, slammed his head against a rock, and sadly passed away in the hospital two days later from brain contusions and bleeding. His cranium was fractured.

Also, just to set the record straight, it's not true that the officer has been suspended. I'm so glad you're using dnevno.hr as a reliable source! Cheers.

PS, this isn't meant to be a debate thread about the specifics of the case.

goldenowl73 said:Unfortunately, my dad—who happens to be a chief surgeon—tells me the exact opposite. He says it’s totally possible to get a skull fracture from hitting your head on concrete, especially if you're drunk. Your reflexes are shot, and because your body goes completely limp, that impact with the pavement hits way harder.

Not quite. It’s not just about his medical opinion.🙂 The supposed Mechanoism doesn't add up. The story goes that the guy lunged, jumped up to break a board, and then landed headfirst on the asphalt? That sounds highly unlikely to me.☕ Plus, we have to ignore the part where the police officer allegedly slammed the man's head against a wall. And look, just read the text. Prof. Gruden clearly stated that someone with a 0.25% blood alcohol level is sluggish and barely able to stand, let alone act aggressive. The claim here was that he attacked and fought with an officer. That just isn't physically possible.☕
According to the claims made by the respected psychiatrist Vladimir Gruden, anyone under the influence of that much alcohol is generally insecure and lethargic. "People in that state lack critical judgment. They tend toward sluggish behavior. They speak slurredly and often talk nonsense. They seem almost asleep and stumble when they walk. On top of that, their words and actions are very close to a dream state," Gruden explained to us.
http://www.dnevno.com/news/arrest-for-police-misconduct.html
We also can't forget the fact that the police were legally obligated to provide aid to the injured person. Because of that, the Department of Justice will be filing criminal charges against the officers involved.

goldenowl73 said:I also have a friend who, about ten years ago, was hiking down the Appalachian Mountains after having a few glasses of wine. He slipped while tipsy, hit his head on a rock, and sadly passed away in the hospital two days later from a brain contusion and bleeding. His skull was fractured.

Of course he did. He fell, tumbled, and cracked his head on a stone. There's a difference between being drunk and being a chronic alcoholic. Chronic alcoholics are much more susceptible to trauma.
Look, you aren't a doctor, so you don't really know the mechanics of an injury that leads to a skull fracture.☕

goldenowl73 said:Also, just so we're clear, it's totally untrue that the officer was suspended. I love how you're treating the Daily News as some kind of ultimate authority here. Cheers!

Well, maybe that source isn't reliable for you, just like the New York Post isn't one for me.☕

God bless this forum—it feels like every single person here is some kind of self-proclaimed expert, no matter where you click 🙂

But seriously, admin, have you ever considered actually stepping in and shutting down the endless free advertising for that spam site, daily.us? It’s a bottomless pit of pure fiction, cheap sensationalism, and manufactured hysteria designed solely to stir up constant, localized conflict every single day.

How are they ever going to stop promoting dailynews.com when they just use those "articles" there to back up their own theories? 🤷

Emily Patel64 said:Honestly, this forum is packed with experts. Everywhere you click, there's someone who knows everything.🙂

But seriously, admin—have you considered putting an end to the constant free advertising for that spammy site, daily.hr? That place survives entirely on fake news, cheap sensationalism, manufactured hysteria, and stirring up drama that mostly targets specific regions every single day.

And maybe stop promoting those establishment newspapers like USA Today and a few other portals too.☕

Emily Patel64 said:Honestly, this forum is stacked. You click anywhere and hit a total expert.🙂

But seriously, admin team—have you thought about finally shutting down that daily spam site that lives off nothing but fake news, cheap drama, manufactured hysteria, and constant regional bickering?

Basically, it's time to stop a handful of people from harassing thousands of members. There’s this small group of maybe 5 or 6 folks who started a witch hunt against Ryan Vaughn7 and a few others just because they have different opinions, even though he's a mod.

They're acting like those messy activist groups trying to force everyone to think the same way. Get this: how can a mod give someone a warning if they don't agree with the mob? Where does that authority come from? It makes zero sense.🤦

It’s getting out of hand. Just look at the threads popping up lately. It used to be that questioning bans or warnings was strictly off-limits unless it was about yourself. Now, everyone's playing lawyer for each other. First, there was that blowout over moderation on ZK, and now we've got this whole thing happening in Politics.

If you ask me, mods should stop feeling like they need to justify every single move they make. Start handing out more permabans. This isn't anarchy; it's a private forum. If people can't respect the rules the mods set, they can go somewhere else. Go start your own board and write whatever you want there. If "community standards" for most people means insulting others or filing complaints with the Prosecutor General, then they don't belong in Politics.

And you know what? You guys should probably start reporting certain posts to the police. It's time to stop using internet anonymity as a shield for spreading hate before the owner ends up in hot water. Trust me, someone's going to file a report eventually.

Shout out to the Politics mods—you guys are doing a solid job.👍

northerntiger said:Basically, they want five or six people to stop bullying a thousand members just because they started a witch hunt against Ryan Vaughn7 and some others, simply because a mod holds a different opinion than them.

It’s like those pathetic little activist groups or those "task forces" trying to force everyone to think the same way. Get this—how is a mod supposed to issue a warning if they don't agree with the mob? Where does that right come from? Makes zero sense. 🤦

And honestly, it's getting out of hand. Look at the topics popping up lately. It used to be you couldn't question someone else's ban or warning—you could only deal with your own stuff. Now, everyone’s acting like a damn defense attorney for each other. First, there was that blowout over moderation on ZK, and now we've got this drama over in Politics.

If you ask me, mods need to stop making excuses for themselves. Just hand out more permabans. This isn't anarchy. It's a private forum. If you can't follow the rules the mods set, go somewhere else. Start your own site and write whatever you want there. If most of what you do is insulting people or filing complaints with the Prosecutor General, then Politics isn't the place for you.

Also, you guys should probably start reporting certain posts to the police. People shouldn't be using internet anonymity as a shield to spread hate before the owner gets in trouble. Trust me, sooner or later, someone’s gonna file a report.

Full support for the Politics mods. They're doing a solid job. 👍

Blah blah, mods are doing their jobs except when it comes to edgea. The guy is arrogant and totally biased. Not surprised you're backing them, though. You two share the same worldview.

northerntiger said:Basically, they want a handful of people—maybe five or six at most—to stop harassing a thousand members just because they started a witch hunt against Ryan Vaughn7 and others simply because a moderator holds a different opinion.

It’s just like those unfortunate organizations and various task forces that try to forcibly silence any dissenting voice. Get this: how is a moderator supposed to issue a warning if they don't share the group's hive mind? Where does that authority come from? 🤦

And honestly, it's crossing a line. Just look at the topics popping up here lately. It used to be that you couldn't question someone else's bans or warnings—you could only deal with your own. Now, everyone is acting like a high-priced defense attorney for one another. After that whole revolt over moderation on ZK, we've got a brand new uprising happening in Politics.

If you ask me, moderators need to stop over-explaining themselves. They should hand out more permanent bans. This isn't anarchy; it's a private forum. If you can't respect the rules the mods set, feel free to find somewhere else to hang out. Go start your own forum and write whatever you want there. If the majority of your posts consist of insulting people or filing complaints with the Prosecutor General, then you don't belong in Politics anymore.

And you know what? People should actually start reporting certain posts to the police. It's about time we stopped using internet anonymity as a shield for spreading hate before the site owner ends up in hot water. Believe me, sooner or later, someone is going to file a report.

Full support to the Politics mods—they're doing a great job. 👍

Well, it sounds like you're trying to bring back criminalizing speech. It reminds me of some long-forgotten eras.☕

granitefalcon26 said:It sounds like you're trying to bring back speech crimes. Honestly, feels like some old-school censorship from way back in the day.☕

Come on, man. Democracy doesn't mean you get to talk trash about whoever you want without any consequences. Being free doesn't mean there isn't accountability for what you write or say. Not to mention, let's be real—not everyone's posts on this board are actually worth reading.

I’m dying to know how people would act if we didn't have anonymity here—if you had to hand over your full legal name and Social Security number just to sign up. 😁

Would granitefalcon26 still be flexing that anti-communist attitude and his hatred for the South like he does now? 😁

Jack Moore90 said:Blah blah, the mods are doing their jobs—except for edge. The guy is arrogant, completely lacks objectivity, and honestly, I’m not surprised you’re backing him up. You two clearly live in the same bubble.

Look, I backed him a long time ago too, mostly because I feel he did more than anyone else to ensure people didn't ACT LIKE ANIMALS when he helped legitimize ZgSash along with his group of loyalists.
At the very least, thanks to him, we aren't constantly dealing with some massive political upheaval or seeing blatant chauvinism—stuff the size of an aircraft carrier—slipping under the radar every single day.

But let's get back to the actual point.
This whole mess started because that spammy site launched those lies again—lies that the exact same handful of users always latch onto—which inevitably leads to a wave of garbage posts that take days to clean up.
Why don't you just put up a disclaimer or some kind of warning right at the start to shut down that kind of mindless, idiotic content before it even gets a chance to flare up?