SmoothOperator
Sadly what connects all these puzzles is that ther
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,591
- Reaction score
- 76
No matter what goofy semantics these officers are speculated on their behaviors, thoughts, and statements(which IMO most likely aren't warranted nor accurate in the least.. Jmo tho!)..
But no matter what is speculated that they were thinking and saying the end result indeed is justified and appropriate IMO.. Meaning no matter how goofy there words and thoughts are represented to be.. Matters nil.. Ending remains the same that that when McD admitted to "A" (as 1 single burglary) he was arrested and charged for that criminal offense.. That is how it should be and only appropriate IMO..
But truth is that whenever, wherever, and however McD decided to cop to this burglary it was ONLY ONE SINGLE BURGLARY THAT HE ORIGINALLY COPPED TO AND WAS CHARGED WITH.. and he had his bond set for this burglary charge..
It was only at some point thereafter, later, and separate from his confession to the first burglary.. At that separate time McD chose to again cop to burglary of a then second apt in the complex.. It was only then when he was charged with the 2nd burglary charge that his bond was then revoked..
IMO as I said i don't believe the officers thought processes and statements were as trivial, extremely light hearted in nature as they were speculated in a conversation form to have been.. I have no reason to believe that this extremely disturbing in nature and violent crime was treated or handled in any way other than with the utmost of respect for the victim as shown in their professionalism.. Nothing to indicate anything different IMO.. But regardless if even so it were found to be true that they spoke in the way represented ^above^ in conversation form.. Regardless the ending was still the appropriate result in McD being arrested and charged, tho ONLY charged with 1 count of burglary initially and then as described ^above^ at a later and separate time he confessed and was charged with the 2nd burglary resulting in the 1st charges bond being revoked.. Just to be clear..
But no matter what is speculated that they were thinking and saying the end result indeed is justified and appropriate IMO.. Meaning no matter how goofy there words and thoughts are represented to be.. Matters nil.. Ending remains the same that that when McD admitted to "A" (as 1 single burglary) he was arrested and charged for that criminal offense.. That is how it should be and only appropriate IMO..
But truth is that whenever, wherever, and however McD decided to cop to this burglary it was ONLY ONE SINGLE BURGLARY THAT HE ORIGINALLY COPPED TO AND WAS CHARGED WITH.. and he had his bond set for this burglary charge..
It was only at some point thereafter, later, and separate from his confession to the first burglary.. At that separate time McD chose to again cop to burglary of a then second apt in the complex.. It was only then when he was charged with the 2nd burglary charge that his bond was then revoked..
IMO as I said i don't believe the officers thought processes and statements were as trivial, extremely light hearted in nature as they were speculated in a conversation form to have been.. I have no reason to believe that this extremely disturbing in nature and violent crime was treated or handled in any way other than with the utmost of respect for the victim as shown in their professionalism.. Nothing to indicate anything different IMO.. But regardless if even so it were found to be true that they spoke in the way represented ^above^ in conversation form.. Regardless the ending was still the appropriate result in McD being arrested and charged, tho ONLY charged with 1 count of burglary initially and then as described ^above^ at a later and separate time he confessed and was charged with the 2nd burglary resulting in the 1st charges bond being revoked.. Just to be clear..